Everitt v. De Groff

Decided August 15, 1823

New York Supreme Court · decided 1823-08-15

In assumpsit, the plea was the general issue, which con-eluded thus : “ And of this he puts himself upon the conntry, &c.” omitting to add, “ and the said plaintiff likewise.” And the plaintiff, without adding a similiter, proceeded and took an inquest by default ¡ which, for that cause, it was now moved to set aside,

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1896

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1823-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Curia.

¶1The issue is sufficiently joined. “ &c.” at the close of the plea, shall he construed in this case to mean evcry necessary matter that ought to be expressed; and so are several authorities. (Co. Litt. 17 b. Per Ld. Mansfield & Aston, J. in Sayer v. Boyer, Cowp. 407.) We, accordingly, construe it to mean a similiter.(a)

¶2Motion denied.

¶3 Vid. Harris’ case, Cro. Jac. 502, and Berton v. Mandell, id. 67, 3 Burr. 1793, Statute of amendments and jeofails, 1 R. L. 118-19, that the J ustices shall proceed to give judgment upon a verdict, notwithstanding: a misjoining of the issue.