Case Name: Utica Insurance Company v. Scott, 8 Cowen, 709
Court: New York Court for the Correction of Errors
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1799
Citations: 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 394
Docket Number: 
Parties: Utica Insurance Company v. Scott, 8 Cowen, 709.
Judges: 
Reporter: Lockwood's Reversed Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
Utica Insurance Company v. Scott, 8 Cowen, 709.
In S. Ct., 19 J. R, 1.
Pleading.
In an action by the Utica Insurance Company (incorporated) against the endorser of a promissory note, he pleaded “ That the plaintiffs contrary to the act, (restraining private banking,) subscribed to and became members of an association, institution or company, and became proprietors of a hank or fund for the purpose of issuing notes, receiving deposits, and making discounts, and transacting all- other business which incorporated banks may and do transact by-virtue of their respective acts of incorporation ; that for this purpose, they established an office or banking house, and issued notes, received deposits, and made discounts, as incorporated banks may, &c., and averred that the note in question was made for the purpose of being and was discounted at their office, they knowing the purpose for which it was made.” The plaintiffs replied the act constituting them a corporation, which authorized them to loan their surplus funds ; and alleged that they lent a part of their surplus funds on the security of the note, showing the particulars : without this, that the plaintiffs had subscribed to or became members of an association, &c., as set out in the plea—for the purpose in the plea set forth: concluding with a verification. ¡Special Demurrer, assigning for cause that the plaintiffs had not in their replication confessed or avoided, traversed or denied, that they illegally and wrongfully established an office or banking house, and issued notes, received deposites, &c., as stated in the plea.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court held, that the replication was bad, for not traversing or denying these facts.
The Court of Errors held, that it was not necessary to traverse or deny those facts, as the facts replied in the in ducement to the traverse, were sufficient to sustain the plaintiff's action—and they reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court.
For reversal, 19 ,• aff. 7.