Williams v. Kilpatrick

New York Supreme Court

Williams v. Kilpatrick

21 Abb. N. Cas. 61

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 Abb. N. Cas. 61 (Williams v. Kilpatrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Kilpatrick, 21 Abb. N. Cas. 61 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Brien, J.

Defendant is sued as a general partner. This is denied by the answer, and by way of avoidance defendant further alleges that he was a special partner under a limited partnership, formed as provided by statute. There [63]*63is an implied admission of liability, which is avoided by the setting forth of the necessary statutory steps taken by •defendant to constitute himself a special partner, and thus avoid liability. Where a violation of a statute is the basis of a complaint, in analogous cases, the specific grounds should be pointed out. In this case, therefore, a reply is proper, in order to raise a precise and definite issue. The court being vested with a discretion (Code Civ. Pro. § 516) it should exercise it in this case.

The motion that plaintiff serve a reply is granted. No costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

O’Brien, J.

Defendant is sued as a general partner. This is denied by the answer, and by way of avoidance defendant further alleges that he was a special partner under a limited partnership, formed as provided by statute. There [63]*63is an implied admission of liability, which is avoided by the setting forth of the necessary statutory steps taken by •defendant to constitute himself a special partner, and thus avoid liability. Where a violation of a statute is the basis of a complaint, in analogous cases, the specific grounds should be pointed out. In this case, therefore, a reply is proper, in order to raise a precise and definite issue. The court being vested with a discretion (Code Civ. Pro. § 516) it should exercise it in this case.

The motion that plaintiff serve a reply is granted. No costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Abb. N. Cas. 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-kilpatrick-nysupct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack