LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Charles H. Lapham v. Thatcher B. Kenyon
Citation: 7 R.I. 251
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1862-09
Docket Number: 
Pages: 251–251
Volume: 7
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Charles H. Lapham v. Thatcher B. Kenyon.

Charles H. Lapham v. Thatcher B. Kenyon.
TRe act of January session, 1839, entitled “An act in addition to CR. 161 of tRe Revised Statutes, ‘ Of tRe Supreme Court,’ ” does not repeal or affect tRe 27tR rule of Practice at Law, wliicR requires an affidavit of merits to accompany a motion to answer an action at law on tRe second day of tRe term.
This was a motion to answer an action at law, brought upon a promissory note against the defendant as maker. The motion was made on the second day of the term, and was not accompanied by an affidavit stating the -defence to the action, as required by the 27th rule of practice at law, but merely stating in that regard, that the defendant “ had a good defence to the suit.”
Lapham,, for the plaintiff,
objected, that the rule had not been complied with.
W. II Potter
contended, th$t the rule had been repealed by the act of January session, 1859, entitled “ An act in addition to Ch. 164 of the Revised Statutes, ‘ Of the Supreme Court.’ ”

The Court
held, that the statute was directed solely against the 29th rule of practice at law, which required an affidavit of defence in order to a jury trial, in a case at issue ; and had no application to the 27th rule, which- regulated the terms upón which a party in default should be permitted to answer an action.
Motion refused.