(No. 21.) By common carrier; separate answers to several causes of action united in same complaint; as to first cause of action, judgment recovered for same demand, and denial of negligence, &c., to the residue.1 SUPREME COURT. Phineas Kent agt. The Hudson River Railroad Company. First. The defendants, in answer to the first cause of action in said complaint stated, aver, that in the month of March, 1853, and on the 23d day thereof, the said plaintiff commenced an action against these defendants, for the same identical cause of action first stated in the complaint herein, in the justices' court of the city of NewYork, for the second judicial district, before Bartholomew O'Conner, Esq., justice, by the service of a summons on them on that day, and returnable before said justice on the 25th of the same month; that these defendants appeared before said justice on said return day, and issue was then and there joined between the said parties thereto, and the trial thereof adjourned to the 29th day of March, 1853; that on the day last aforesaid, the said parties appeared before said justice, and said cause was then and there fully tried upon the merits, before said justice, and submitted to him, and he thereafter, and on the 2d day of April, 1853, duly rendered judgment in favor of these defendants against said plaintiff. These defendants further say, that said court was and is a court of competent jurisdiction, 'To Complaint No. 85, Part III., ante, p. 523. both of the parties and of the subject of said action, and that said judgment has never been appealed from, reversed, modified or vacated; to which judgment and the proceedings thereon these defendants refer. Second. To the second cause of action in said complaint contained, the defendants deny that they received, in the city of New-York or elsewhere, the one hundred and eightytwo sheep pelts, referred to, to be delivered to the plaintiff at Albany, in a good condition and in good order,1 or that the same were of the value of $500; and they further deny that they detained them in their cars until said pelts became rotten and worthless, or that through their carelessness and default the said pelts were entirely or at all spoiled, and of no value to the plaintiff. The defendants aver, that they did safely and securely, and with reasonable diligence, carry and convey said pelts from New-York to Albany, and were there ready and willing, and offered to deliver the same to the plaintiff or his agent in like good order and condition, in all respects, as the same were received by these defendants. Third. To the third cause of action in the complaint stated, the defendants deny that they received, in the city of New-York or elsewhere, the seventy-one sheep pelts, therein referred to, to be delivered to the plaintiff, or his agent at Albany, in good order and condition, or that 1 This denial seems manifestly bad. If it is intended as a denial that the sheep were received at all, it is inconsistent with the subsequent averment that they were safely carried and offered to be delivered to the plaintiff, and such defences will not be allowed in the same answer. (See note, ante, page 552.) If, on the contrary, it is intended, as is most probable, as a denial that they were received at the particular place mentioned, or to be delivered at the place mentioned, or in "good condition," &c., it is still bad as being evasive, and not a denial in the disjunctive of each particular allegation. (See cases cited, Pleadings, 427, 430.) 2 The same is true of the denial in this defence. they neglected or failed to perform any agreement in respect thereto made, or that they wrongfully, carelessly and improperly kept said pelts in their cars for a long time, until they became rotten or unmerchantable, or that they, through their carelessness or default, suffered said pelts to become spoiled and worthless, or that they failed or refused to deliver the same as they promised, and within a reasonable time. They aver that the same were delivered within a reasonable time, and in the same order and condition as received by them. These defendants deny all charges of intent to defraud or injure the plaintiff, as well as of carelessness and negligence, and all material allegations of the complaint, inconsistent with this answer. THOMAS M. NORTH, Defendants' Attorney. (No. 22.) Answer in an action on policy of insurance of boat, setting up a breach of warranty contained in the policy, that if any other insurances should be made to more than a specified sum, the policy should be void.1 SUPREME COURT. Henry E. Mussey The Astor Mutual Insurance Company. The said defendant, for answer to the plaintiff's complaint, says: 1 To Complaint No. 47, Part III., ante, p. 441. That at the same time the said defendant issued the policy in the said complaint set forth, the said plaintiff and one Conrad Reid, who was a joint owner with said plaintiff of the said schooner Buckeye, mentioned in said policy, procured another policy of insurance upon the said schooner to be issued to them by The Atlas Mutual Insurance Company, a body corporate and politic, created, and doing business as such, under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New-York, which last mentioned policy bore date on the 4th day of September, in the year 1852, wherein and whereby the said The Atlas Mutual Insurance Company did, on account of the said plaintiff and others, as their interest might appear, make insurance and cause to be insured, lost or not lost, at and from the 4th day of September, in the year 1852, at noon of that day, until the 4th day of September, in the year 1853, on the body, tackle apparel and other furniture of the said schooner called the Buckeye, warranted to be confined to ports and places on Lakes Erie, St. Clair, Huron, Michigan, Ontario and River St. Lawrence, not below Ogdensburgh, and warranted not to navigate above Fort Gratiot after November 20th, at noon of that day, in the year 1852, and warranted to be laid up from November 30th, at noon of that day, 1852, until April 1st, at noon of that day, in the year 1853, in a manner acceptable to the said The Atlas Mutual Insurance Company, and warranted not to insure more than $11,000, and in case of any excess over $11,000, the said policy was, by the terms thereof, to be void. And the said defendant further says, that it was further provided, in and by the said policy last mentioned, that it should and might be lawful for the said vessel in her voyage to proceed and sail, to touch and stay at any port or place, if thereunto obliged by stress of weather or other unavoidable accident, without prejudice to the said insurance. And the said defendant further says, that the said schooner and other property, in and by the said last mentioned policy insured, were therein and thereby valued at $14,000, without any further account to be given by the assured to the assurers, or any of them, for the same. And the defendant further says, that the adventures and perils which the said The Atlas Mutual Insurance Company, in and by the said policy, assumed and declared itself contented to bear and take upon itself in the voyage therein mentioned, were of the seas, men-of-war, fires, enemies, pirates, rovers, thieves, jettisons, letters of mart and countermart, surprisals, takings at sea, arrests, restraints and detainments of all kings, princes or people, of what nation, condition or quality soever, barratry of the master and mariners, and all other perils, losses and misfortunes that have or shall come to the hurt, detriment or damage of the said vessel, or any part thereof, as by the said policy among other things will more fully and particularly appear. And the said defendant further says, that subsequent to the execution and delivery of the policy in the said complaint set forth and of the policy last above mentioned and referred to, and prior to the loss, in the said complaint stated, of the said schooner, and on or about the 2d day of November, in the year 1852, the said plaintiff and the said Conrad Reid procured their interests in the said schooner Buckeye to be insured in the Mutual Insurance Company of Buffalo for the sum of $5,000, and in the Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company of Milwaukee in the further sum of $5,000, the loss, if any, to be payable to them, the said plaintiff and the said Conrad Reid. And the said defendant further says, that the policy set forth in the said complaint, and the other three policies hereinbefore mentioned and referred to, were in favor of |