Case ID: f_153/html/0176-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      DALLAS, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PAYNE v. KNICKERBOCKER TRUST CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    May 6, 1907.)
    No. 22
    Pleading — Issues and Pi?ooe.
    Where a special plea setting up the defense of fraud was properly stricken out as not sufficiently specific, the defendant is not entitled, to in- ■ traduce such defense under the plea of general issue by cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.
    H. E. Allen, for appellant.
    Conover English, for appellee.
    Before DALLAS, GRAY, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges.
   DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

This assignment of errors presents no question requiring our decision which may not briefly be disposed of. The specification respecting the overruling of the demurrer to the declaration does not appear to he seriously insisted upon. It could not be maintained.

The learned judge was clearly right in holding that the second and third pleas were not specific enough. He properly exercised his discretion in striking them out, and as the fraud to which they referred was not again and more specifically pleaded, it is manifest that no error was committed in refusing to permit the defendant to irregularly introduce his supposed defense by cross-examining a witness of the plaintiff “with respect to the question of fraud, under the plea of general issue, which was the only plea of record.”

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.