Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Wend. 78

Underwood v. Campbell

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1834

New York Supreme Court · decided 1834-10-15

Demurrer to pleas. The plaintiff declared in trespass: the declaration contained five counts. In the first, the defendants were charged with breaking and entering three closes, situate, See.; treading down the grass, <fcc.; ploughing and tearing up the soil, Sec.; prostrating fences, and carrying away the materials composing the same; breaking open certain barns, and taldng and carrying away wagons, carts, Sec. and converting and disposing thereof to their own use.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1834-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1850

1 state decisions

20183418401850decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*80By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

¶2The pleas demurred to are all bad. The second, third and fourth profess each to be an answer to the whole declaration, but they give no answer, nor ^ey attempt to justify the assaulting and beating the plaintiff’s wife and son, charged in the second and third counts of the plaintiff’s declaration, nor the expulsion of the plaintiff’s family charged in the fourth and fifth counts. Since the case of Sterling v. Sherwood, 20 Johns. R. 204, and Hecok v. Coates, 2 Wendell, 419, it must be considered the settled rule of pleading in this court, that each plea must contain in itself an answer to the whole declaration, or to one count in the declaration, whichever it professes to answer. The defendant may deny part, and justify the residue, if he chooses ; but the whole gravamen must be answered in some way. This object is not answered, as it was contended on the argumeiit by the defendant’s counsel, by putting in first the general issue, and afterwards justifying apart. The general issue constitutes no part of a demurrer book, unless itisdemurredto. The record in such case should contain no pleadings, except such as are connected with the demurrer. In this case, the demurrer book contains, besides the general issue, two pleas of the statute of limitations and the replications to them, which only serve to encumber the record. It seems that in England the practice is unsettled, but this court, in 20 Johnson, adopted the rule as laid down by Oh. Justice Willes, that where a defendant puts in a defective plea, the plaintiff may demur to it without discontinuing his suit, and is not obliged to take judgment by nil dicit. Willes, 480. Yelv. 38.

¶3The third plea is bad, also, as amounting only to the general issue. It sets up a license from a person having only a possessory right, without giving color to the plaintiff, and is therefore within the decision in Collett v. Flinn, 5 Cowen, 466. Upon the general issue, the plaintiff must prove his possession, and the plea as pleaded raises a question of possession only, and is therefore bad.. The sixth and seventh pleas are also bad, because they profess to answer only so much of the second and third counts of the plaintiff’s declaration as relates to the assaulting and beating of the plaintiff’s wife and son, and neither deny or justify the breaking and entering the *81plaintiff’s closes. The plaintiff is entitled to judgment on all the demurrers, with leave to the defendant to amend, on payment of costs.

¶4Judgment for plaintiff.

/13/wend/78 · .json · Public domain