Herold v. Smith
PHILIP HEROLD v. JOHN L. SMITH
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Silas S. Sanderson (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Sanderson
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
The plaintiff was not required, under the amendments of 1866, to deny the defendant’s counter claim in order to put Mm upon Ms proof. In respect to matter in avoidance and to counter claims, the rule is the same as before the amendments of 1866. Those amendments introduced a new pleading called a cross complaint. When the answer contains a *125cross complaint, it must be replied to, so far as the cross complaint is concerned, or the matters therein alleged will be taken as confessed. But in no other respect is the plaintiff required to reply to the answer.
Order affirmed.
Mr. Justice Shatter expressed no opinion.
Cited by
- Jones v. Jones · 1869-07-01