Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Miss. 101

Prewitt v. Bennett

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1846

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1846-01-15

EekoR from the circuit court of Choctaw county; Hon. Hend-ley S. Bennett, judge. This was an action of assumpsit, brought to the September term, 1844, of the circuit court of Choctaw county, by Mi-cajah Bennett and Josiah Bennett, as executors of Stephen Bennett, deceased, for the use of Duncan S. Morris, against John Prewitt; founded on a promissory note for five hundred and ninety-two dollars, dated July 27th, 1819, and payable one day after date.

Relies on Pickens v. Harper

Decided 1846-01-15

Mr. Justice Thachee

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Writ of error to Choctaw county circuit court. The plaintiff in error filed a plea to the action, the object of which plea was to call in question the character in which the plaintiffs below instituted their suit, and to require proof of such character. This plea was not verified by oath or affirmation. At a stage of the trial below, the plaintiff in error moved the circuit court for judgment, because of the want of a replication to this plea ; but that court overruled the motion, and directed the plea to be stricken out as a nullity. This action of the court is claimed as error.

¶3By our statutes, a plaintiff is not required to prove his description of character set forth in the declaration unless it be denied by plea, and its truth attested by oath or affirmation, except in cases where the face of the record itself evidences the *103truth of the fact set forth by the plea. The record of this case does not bring it within that exception. The plea, therefore, being in the nature of a plea in abatement, was of a kind .which, in the language of the statute, H. H. 589, § 2, “should not be admitted or received,” without an oath or affirmation of its truth. It was not merely informal, but was deficient in one of the substantial requisitions of the statute, and was consequently properly treated as a nullity. Templeton et al. v. Planters Bank, 5 H. 172; Vicksburg Waterworks & Banking Co. v. Washington et al. 1 S. & M. 539.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/15/miss/101 · .json · Public domain