19 Wend. 216 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1838
By the Court,
This plea in abatement is on© which relates to the process by which the suit is commenced. It' aims to say that this process does not introduce as plaintiffs all the persons jointly interested ; and therefore it should be quashed and the plaintiff put to begin de novo. A similar plea at Westminster Hall would generally be so drawn as to pray an abatement of the writ or bill; that is to say, the original writ which emanated from chancery, or the bill of the king’s bench, which is not a writ, but is considered as the original. Gould’s PI. 262, § 84. The latter is in substance a declaration, and filed on the real or assumed ground, that the defendant being already a prisoner by other process of the court, any one may come in and file a bill as the first step in his cause. In that bill the defendant is said to be in custody, &c. whereas the declaration which supposes an original writ, recites that as the first process. In other words, one is a proceeding by process of original - writ, the other by process of bill, and the plea in abatement prays either that the writ or bill may be quashed, according to the form in which the suit may have been commenced. Gould’s Pl. 261, 2, § 83, 84. These distinctions are laid down and illustrated with great clearness and accuracy by Mr. Stephen, in his book on pleadings, ch. 1, p. 3 to 70 inclusive. It will be seen there that the exchequer also commences its suits between subject and subject, like the king’s bench, by pro
These cases and other authorities are enough to show that the plea must be correct at least in its prayer as to the kind of process to be quashed, whether it may or may not go farther and include the declaration. If it be right as to the original process, as the writ or bill, and add the declaration, that addition may perhaps be treated as surplusage. It was said in Leaves v. Bernard, 5 Mod. 132, that in the K. B. you may plead both to the bill and declaration ; and so the case of Atwood v. Davis, 1 Barn. & Aid, 172, would seem to indicate. The plea there, which was in the king’s bench, prayed that the writ and declaration might be quashed, and held ill; but that the prayer should have been of the bill, not the writ. Lord Ellenborough, Ch. J. said, “ there must be judgment for the plaintiff, unless bill and writ mean the same thing.” If Mr. Stephen’s form be right, then Haywood's exc’rs v. Chestney, in 13 Wendell, says virtually that the word writ is equally inapplicable to our county court of common pleas. If any original process behind the declaraSion is to be implied, it is probably a plaint in analogy to the
But the present revised statutes, 2 R. S. 269, § 1, sub. 3, provide still another mode of commencing suits in the supreme court and common pleas ; that is by declaration. The provisions of that statute were extended to the mayor’s courts in 1833, Sess. 56, p. 20, ch. 17, § 5. Under this latter statute, the suit now in question was commenced, as is obvious from the beginning of the declaration. This is then not only in the nature of process, but it is the original process itself, like an original, or a plaint or bill of privilege. It is served on the party personally. The declaration thus becoming the real and only process known to the suit, I now see no other way in a plea in abatement but to pray judgment of the declaration so nomine according to the truth, per curiam in Johnson v. Altham, 10 Mod. 192, the same as you would of a bill in the king’s bench, or formerly in this court. If it be a bill or equivalent to a bill here, or ever were so, which is quite doubtful, 15 Johns. R. 326, note, 3 Johns. Cas, 149, 50, per Radcliff, J., yet certainly it is not so in the common pleas or mayor’s court, where that class of original process is unknown, except it be against its officers. It supposes nothing which has gone before it in nature of an original; neither plaint, bill nor writ. The power is given by statute, 2 R. S. 148, § I, 2d ed. Least of all does it come from the notion of the old original, or the fiction on which the bill rests. The old form of prayer is therefore gone quoad hoc. It becomes utterly unmeaning in a court to which the process by bill is a stranger. The plea might as well pray judgment of a bill in equity. The remark in Leaves v. Bernard 1 Mod. 132, that billa and narratio are the same, was said of the king’s bench. To call the declaration in the mayor’s court or common pleas a bill, is at least a defect in form.
As to the form, if we were permitted to look from the prayer into other parts, (but we are not,) there is nothing to
Testing the plea below by these rules, it is fatally defective. It begins and concludes by praying judgment of the said bill. I incline to think that this was a defect of substance ; but if of form only, being in abatement, the defect need not be assigned specially. Such is the construction of the English statutes of special demurrers, 27 Eliz. c. 5, and
There is nothing in the objection that the word “ prays,” a singular instead of a plural verb, is used in the introductory prayer. The whole of that might be stricken out and yet the plea be good ; for we have seen that the conclusion is the test. So as to the word deposed. Strike that out and the plea will read “ the said several grievances in the said declaration mentioned,” which is a perfect reference. Several stronger cases of rejection for surplusage are put in 15 Vin. Abr. 560, tit. Nonsense. There is nothing in the other causes specially assigned.
But it is said the declaration is bad; the plaintiff was first in fault, and cannot therefore make an available objection to the plea. Such is the general rule, but a demurrer to a plea in abatement is an exception. In Peter v. Pilkington, Carth. 171, in case for a tort, the defendant pleaded nonjoinder, which was bad, and so held on demurrer, “ when the defendant’s connsel would have taken exceptions to the "declaration, but the court would not allow it because there was a plea in abatement.” As it appeared, however, on the plaintiff’s declaration that he had no cause of action when the suit was brought, the matter was disposed of by his applying to amend, and the defendant being put to answer the corrected declaration. The case of Bellassyse v. Hester, 2 Lutw. 1589, 1592, also mentioned in a note by Lutwyche, at p.. 1604, is the same. The contrary was held in Powis v. Williams, 2 Lutw. 1601, to which he adds the note ; but he distinguishes the principal case because there the matter pleaded in abatement was also available in bar. And this is the only ground on which Evans v. Stevens, 4 T. R. 224, can be supported. The plea, as Buller, J. said, p. 227, tended to show that the plaintiff could maintain no action. The right to go back on demurrer to a plea in abatement seems, however, to have been hastily assumed in that case, without reference to the previous authorities. The same
Then was the matter here pleaded available in bar ? That is not pretended. The action being for a tort, the nonjoinder of plaintiffs as well as defendants can be availed of by plea in abatement only. This is laid down by Williams, in his notes to Saunders, 1 vol. 291, g. and h. Amer. ed. 1807, as the universal rule respecting not only actions for injuries to property, but to all acts of malfeasance", misfeasance or nonfeasance, and the like; to which he cites an abundance of authority. 1 Chit. Pl. 55, Am. ed. 1828, is equally comprehensive. And see Wheelwright v. De Peyster, 1 Johns. R. 471, 486; Low v. Munford, 14 id. 426. In matter as well as form, therefore, the plea in the mayor’s court was receivable in abatement only.
As to costs; the statute, 2 R. S. 511, § 17, 2d ed. provides that in all actions and proceedings in which the plaintiff would be entitled to costs upon any judgment rendered ,in his favor, if, after the appearance of the defendant, such plaintiff be nonsuited, discontinue his suit, be non pressed, or judgment pass against him on verdict, demurrer or otherwise,” the defendant shall have his costs. It is not denied that the plaintiff might have had costs here, had he recovered. Then the statute is clear that the defendant was entitled to costs had the judgment been good in other respects. The distinctions under the English statutes do not arise. The only exception against the defendants where all succeed in a plea in abatement, is the case of a misnomer by a subse
But the Judgement must be reserved on theground that he conclusion of the plea was wrong. A LEANT, January, 1838. Anon. plea was wrong.