Spiegel v. Thompson
This text of 1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 129 (Spiegel v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
An answer which “ denies each and every allegation not hereinafter specifically admitted controverted or denied ” uses a form of denial not authorized by the Code and no issue is created by it (Miller agt. McCloskey, 1 Civ. Pro. R., 252; S. C., 9 Abb. N C., 303; McEnroe agt. Decker, 58 How. Pr., 251; Hammond agt. Earle. 5 Abb. N. C., 106).
The sale and delivery of the goods by the plaintiffs having been admitted by a failure to properly deny the same {Code, sec. 522), it became immaterial whether the plaintiffs were partners or not, as a sale made by them jointly entitled them to a recovery independently of the question of partnership (Millard agt. Thorn, 56 N. Y., 402).
An inspection of the pleadings readily demonstrates that no injustice has been done.
Motion for a new trial denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spiegel-v-thompson-nynyccityct-1884.