Mason v. Burson

Decided September 15, 1877

Tennessee Supreme Court · decided 1877-09-15

1. CHAMPEETY AND MAINTENANCE. Interrogatories cannot be exhibited after return term of process executed. A petition, accompanied with interrogatories, alleging cham-perty and maintenance against the plaintiff, cannot be exhibited at a term subsequent to that at which the process in such suit is returnable, if it has been served or executed. Cited and construed: Code (1858), sec. 1784, subsec. 2; Shannon’s Code, sec. 3179, subsec. 2. 2. SAME. Interrogatories to defendant filing cross-bill. It seems that interrogatories, for the purpose of detecting champerty and maintenance, cannot be exhibited to a defendant who files a cross-bill as a defensive pleading seeking- affirmative relief, for the reason, it seems, that such charge cannot be predicated of such a proceeding.

Decided 1877-09-15

Eeiceman, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court:

¶2This case comes before us on petition, accompanied with interrogatories alleging champerty and maintenance against the defendants in the case, who- had filed a cross-bill to assert supposed rights in the, case. The petition was demurred to and demurrer sustained, and we think properly. Interrogatories, such as this case presents, are only allowed to be filed under Code, sec. 1784, sub-see. 2 [-Shannon’s Code, see. 8179, sub-see. 21, at the term to which the process is returnable.

¶3In addition to this, the parties are defendants, and a cross-bill, while it seeks affirmative relief, is a defensive pleading, and it may well be -doubted whether in this aspect of the case, the charge could be predicated of such a proceeding-. This case had been at issue for years, and the interrogatories were filed too late.

¶4Affirm decree.