Van Buren v. Swan
Van Buren v. Swan
Opinion of the Court
1. The declaration is sufficient in form. It «ras not necessary to allege that the defendant was a married woman, or that the services for which the plaintiff sought to
2. The answer did not put in issue the substantial averments in the declaration. These were that the plaintiff, at the time alleged in the declaration, was entitled to receive from the defendant a commission equal to the amount stated in the account annexed for the sale of a house and lands on Staten Island. The answer did not deny these allegations specifically, or state any substantive ground of defence to the charge for commission, as is required by Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 18. It did not deny that the plaintiff had earned the commission which he charged, nor did it aver that the sum charged was not just and proper. It was a mere general denial of indebtment, and amounted to nothing more than the general issue, which is expressly abolished by Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 15. See Granger v. Ilsley, 2 Gray, 521.
In this state of the pleadings, as the substantive facts alleged in thn declaration were not denied in clear and precise terms, the case came within the provisions contained in Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 27, and the court should have ruled that the earning of the c n"-iV)issions by the sale of the property to the amount stated 1? the account annexed was admitted. Upon this ground the >:.uintiff is entitled to a new trial, and the order must be
Exceptions sustained.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James Van Buren v. Mary Swan
- Status
- Published