1 Johns. 91 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1806
now delivered the opinion of the court.' The 11th section of the insolvent act, authorises the'
There are then only two questions for consideration-.
1», Whether the defendant was. bound to set forth any thing further than his discharge under the act, by an officer having competent authority to grant it ?
2. Whether the plea is, correct in. concluding to the , court ?
The plea stating the facts already mentioned,, gives to. the. Recorder jurisdiction..of the case ; and the dischargers, by the 7th section, of the act, declared to be- conclusive evidence in all courts within, this State, of the facts therein contained. It is not pretended that the discharge omits any material fact, but it is insisted that the facts themselves should have been pleaded, and not the evidence of those facts. In the very statute now under consideration, as well as in various others, our legislature; have evinced a strong inclination,, to render pleadings more;succinct- and. I take it to be a salutary principle,, that where the matter tends to great prolixity, a concise manner of pleading is to be admitted.
Next, as to the conclusion of the plea; there is no rule in pleadmg, better, or more universally established, than this, that whenever new matter is introduced, the pleading must conclude with an averment.
Demurrer overruled.
D. & E. 461. Barton v. Webb.
5 Com. Digest. E. 18. 402. 2 Lev. 81. Doe v. Parmiter, 3 Lev. 246. Adney v. Vernon, ibid 404. Patrick v. Johnson. Shower 48. Simpson v. Merille.
Doug. 97.
8 T. R. 305.
Willes. 201.
1 Caines, 249.
Doug. 60. Chandler v. Roberts, and the cases there cited. 2 D. & E. 576. Henderson v. Wisthy.