From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kelley v. Ryder

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jan 12, 1894
28 A. 801 (R.I. 1894)

Opinion

January 12, 1894.

An answer to a bill in equity which does not confess and avoid or expressly deny the allegations of the bill so as to show what are the real issues involved in the suit, may be excepted to for insufficiency, although an oath to the answer has been waived.

BILL IN EQUITY to dissolve a partnership. An oath to the answer was waived. On exceptions to the answer.

John F. Lonsdale Bernard J. Padien, for complainant.

George J. West, for respondents


The rules of equity pleading require that an answer should confess and avoid or expressly deny the allegations of the bill. Place v. The City of Providence, 12 R.I. 1. The answer of the respondents James J. Ryder and Catherine E. Ryder does not, in the particulars excepted to, comply with this requirement. Instead of expressly denying the allegations of the bill, it sets up matters of defence which deny the allegations of the bill only by implication. From such an answer it is difficult, if not practically impossible, to determine what are the real issues involved in the suit.

Exceptions sustained.


Summaries of

Kelley v. Ryder

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jan 12, 1894
28 A. 801 (R.I. 1894)
Case details for

Kelley v. Ryder

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS J. KELLEY vs. JAMES J. RYDER et als

Court:Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Date published: Jan 12, 1894

Citations

28 A. 801 (R.I. 1894)
18 R.I. 455

Citing Cases

McTwiggan v. Hunter

Where the oath to an answer to a bill in equity is waived, the answer may be excepted to for insufficiency if…