Hoadley v. Roush

<p>This was an action on an attachment bond by George T. Hoadley, plaintiff, against David Roush and George Roush, (the latter was surety) in the circuit court of Mason county, determined in September, 1867. The declaration contained two counts; the first averring the suing out of an attachment and its being subsequently quashed, and in consequence of the wrongful suing, the plaintiff was damaged to the value of 856 dollars and 48 cents; the second averred special damages, special injury, &c., by reason of the wrongful suing out of the attachment.</p> <p>The defendants tendered four pleas. No. 1 was conditions performed, to which the plaintiff replied generally. No. 2 was non damnijicatus and was in the following words: “And for further,plea, the said defendant, by his attorney, comes and saith that if said plaintiff has been dam-nified for, or by reason or means, or on account of any matter, cause or thing in the said condition of the said writing obligatory in the said declaration mentioned, the said plaintiff has been so damnified of his own wrong, and by and through his own means and default, and this he is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays judgment, if the said plaintiff ought to have or maintain his aforesaid action thereof against him, &o;” to which the plaintiff demurred, but the demurrer was overruled. No. 3 was de injuria, averring that if the plaintiff" was injured it was by reason of his own wrong and default, to which the plaintiff objected, but the court overruled the objection, and the plaintiff then demurred, which demurrer the court likewise overruled. The fourth plea was rejected and was not considered. The plaintiff took nothing by his bill, &e. He applied to this court for a supersedeas, alleging for error the rulings of the court before stated.</p>