Court Opinion

ID: 6603154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:09:36.766921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:58:05.456249
License: Public Domain

LyoN, J.
The answer is clearly frivolous. First. The first defense pleaded is nil debet, which is entirely inappropriate to an action of assumpsit, and may always be treated as a nullity when pleaded in such an action. 1 Chitty’s Pl. (7th Eng. ed.), 518. Second. The corporate character of the plaintiff is not specifically denied, as required by the statute. R. S., 1012, sec. 4199. A denial of knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief falls far short of such a denial. Hence the answer raises no issue in that behalf. Third. The denial that the defendant agreed in writing to pay interest on the account, is not responsive to the allegation- in the complaint that he' expressly agreed to pay interest thereon, and presents no issue. The defense is a negative pregnant. Fourth. The last defense is badly pleaded. The answer does not deny that the defendant purchased of the plaintiff the goods specified in the complaint; and if the defendant desired to setup as a defense that the plaintiff had assigned the claim, he should have .stated that fact in his answer.
By the Cov/rt. —Judgment affirmed.