Case Name: John M. Flint administrator, &c. agt. Richard H. Morehouse
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1845-12
Citations: 2 How. Pr. 4
Docket Number: 
Parties: John M. Flint administrator, &c. agt. Richard H. Morehouse.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
John M. Flint administrator, &c. agt. Richard H. Morehouse.
It is not necessary to .state the residence of counsel in an affidavit for a motion for leave to reply double; it is only necessary to show by affidavit, that the matters sought to be replied we trae. The 63d rule only applies where the advice of counsel is necessary'. .
December Term, 1845.
Motion for leave to reply double to defendant’s special pleas.
The declaration contained the common counts for work and labor, board, lodging, tuition, &c. Pleas, several issues, statute of limitations (non-assumpsit, infra sex annos) and infancy. Plaintiff moved for leave to reply to the plea of the statute of' limitations, defendant’s absence from the state; that plaintiff took out the first letters of administration on the estate of the intestate within one year before suit brought, and a new promise. And to the plea of infancy, necessaries and a new prom-0 ise. Defendant’s counsel objected that the affidavit on which the motion was made, was insufficient under the 63d rule, not showing the residence of counsel who gave the advice, &c. Plaintiff’s counsel replied, that the rule only applied where advice of counsel was necessary ; that in this case it was only necessary to show by affidavit, that the matters sought to be replied were true, the court would judge of the necessity, &c. Defendant’s counsel on the merits, read affidavits that the matters sought to be replied were not true.
B. Goodman, plaintiff's counsel.
Woodbuff & Goodman, plaintiff’s attorneys.
J. A. Spences, defendants counsel.
J. S. Bathbone, defendants attorney.

Opinion:
Jewett, Justice.
Overruled the defendant's objection to the insufficiency of plaintiff's affidavit. And as to the replication of a new promise *after defendant became of
full age; the judge said it could not be necessary or proper, as the intestate was shown to have died long before the defendant was of the age of twenty-one years; he however granted the motion, so far as to allow the plaintiff to reply double, only to the plea of the statute of limitations.