D'Arcy v. Steuer
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Winton Motor Carriage Co. v. Broadway Automobile Co. (Wash. 1911)
- Pan-American Amusement Co. v. Maguire (1st Cir. 1905)
- Dunbar-Laporte Motor Co. v. Desrocher (Mass. 1924)
- Frisch v. Wells (Mass. 1909)
- Wylie v. Marinofsky (Mass. 1909)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
An answer in the form of a general denial long has been sanctioned under our practice act. Boston Relief & Submarine Co. v. Burnett, 1 Allen, 410. It is permissible in replevin, as in other personal actions, and puts in issue the plaintiff’s right of possession. Spooner v. Cummings, 151 Mass. 313. In other words it is broader than the old plea non eepit, and dispenses with the necessity of an avowry or cognizance in order to justify a judgment for a return. See Bartlett v. Brickett, 98 Mass. 521; Pub. Sts. c. 184, § 13. The practice in many other States under statutes would seem to be more or less like ours. Fleet v. Lockwood, 17 Conn. 233, 243. Holliday v. McKinne, 22 Fla. 153, 158. Conner v. Comstock, 17 Ind. 90, 92, 93. King v. Ramsay, 13 Ill. 619, 628. Bates v. Buchanan, 2 Bush, 117.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.