Superior Court of Delaware, 1897

Ridings v. McMenamin

Ridings v. McMenamin
Superior Court of Delaware · Decided October 2, 1897 · Tore
17 Del. 15; 1 Penne. 15; 39 A. 463; 1897 Del. LEXIS 25

Counsel

Herbert H. Ward for plaintiff., Henry C. Co7irad and Medford H. Cahoo7i for defendant.

Ridings v. McMenamin

Opinion of the Court

Tore, C. J:—

It is settled in this court that an affidavit of defence alleging payment simply is sufficient. The rule is that snap judgments are never granted if there is a doubt. The court has recognized the word “ payment as being sufficient in affidavits of defence. It has a specific and clear meaning, which is that the claim has been paid.

Mr. Ward asked leave to note an exception to the above ruling. The court held that no exception would lie, as it was not a final judgment and no writ of error could be taken.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.