Case ID: how-pr-ns_3/html/0495-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT.
    Millville Manufacturing Company, appellant, agt. John T. Salter, respondent, impleaded, &c.
    Pleading— Complaint— Answer—Denials in, when bad—When allegations of complaint to be deemed admitted.
    
    The complaint contained the usual allegations to charge the drawer and acceptor of a draft. The only denial in the answer of the defendant sued as the acceptor was, “denies each and every allegation therein contained not hereinafter specifically admitted, controverted or denied.
    
      Held, that such a denial was neither a general nor specific denial, and, therefore, no denial; and that consequently all the allegations of the complaint were admitted, and that the referee erred in dismissing the complaint for want of proof that the defendant who was sued as acceptor had accepted the draft.
    
      Held, also, that a statement in the answer admitting the acceptance " of a draft similar to the one set forth in the complaint ” was an admission of the acceptance of the draft sued on.
    
      First Department, General Term, April, 1885.
    
      Before Davis, P. J., Beady and Daniels, JJ.
    
    
      Charles M. Hall, for appellant.
    
      J. Homer Hildreth, for respondent.
   Pee Cueiam.

— The action, so far as it was against the defendant Salter, was brought to enforce his liability as the acceptor of a draft or bill of exchange drawn upon him. Its presentation to and acceptance by him was alleged in the complaint, and by his answer. Without either generally or specifically denying either of the allegations in the complaint, he admitted “ the acceptance of a draft similar to the one set forth in the complaint herein, but alleges that the same was for the accommodation of the drawer and co-defendant Canfield, and that there was never any value or consideration for the acceptance or payment of said draft by this defendant.” The plaintiff did not prove the acceptance of the draft by Salter, and because of that omission the referee determined the action in his favor. But in that he was clearly in error, for his answer contained no general denial and no specific denial of the acceptance of the draft by Salter, but admitted the acceptance of a similar draft without any allegation that it was different from the one set forth in the complaint. It was admitted in effect that the allegation contained in the complaint on this subject was true. That resulted from the omission to deny, either generally or specifically, what was alleged in the complaint. And the failure to deny the acceptance of the draft, together with the statement admitting the acceptance of a similar draft, was all that could be required to establish the fact that the defendant Salter did accept the draft in suit, as it was alleged he did in the complaint. The construction placed upon the pleadings by the referee was unsupported, by which he concluded that the acceptance of the draft was not established. He should, on the contrary, have held the pleadings to have admitted the fact of the acceptance, and determined the action upon the basis of the existence of that fact.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Note.— See to same effect Porter agt. Frall (67 How., 445); Callanan agt. Gilman (67 How., 464) and Spiegel agt. Thompson (ante, 129).— [Ed.