Rapp v. Elliot

Decided January 1, 1792

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1792

THE defendant had pleaded in abatement, that the plaintiff was a feme covert: And now Howell, for the plaintiff, moved to strike off the plea, not being supported by any affidavit, as the rules of the Court require. Todd contended that he could file the affidavit instanter, if the Court should deem it necessary in this case ; but Howell said it was too late, and that a dilatory plea could not be recurred to, at this stage of the proceedings.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1792

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1848

6 state decisions

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 →

¶1THE defendant had pleaded in abatement, that the plaintiff was a feme covert: And now Howell, for the plaintiff, moved to strike off the plea, not being supported by any affidavit, as the rules of the Court require. Todd contended that he could file the affidavit instanter, if the Court should deem it necessary in this case ; but Howell said it was too late, and that a dilatory plea could not be recurred to, at this stage of the proceedings.

¶2By the Court :

¶3—As the plea is not supported by any affidavit, it cannot be sustained ; and we think it is too late to file a new one. The defendant must, therefore, plead in chief; or the plaintiff will be at liberty to sign judgment.