defect

that, within the bounds of the rational, Congress, not the courts, must remain primarily responsible for striking the appropriate state/federal balance.

The want of something required by law. See 20 N. Y. 355; 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 574.

A lack or absence of something essential to completeness. 00 L. J. Q. B. The want of something required by law. In pleading, matter sufficient in law must be deduced and expressed according to the forms of law. Defects in matters of substance cannot be cured, because it dors cot appear that the plaintiff is entitled to recover; but when the defects are in matter of form, they are cured by a verdict in favor of the party who committed them: Robinson v. Clifford, 2 Wash. C. C, l. Fed Cas. No. 11,94S; Hunnicutt v. Carsley, 1 Ben. & M. (Va.) 153; Read v. Inhabitants of Chelmsford. 1G Pick. (Mass.) 128; Worster v. Proprietors of Canal Bridge, id. 541: Russell v. 2 McL. 35, Fed. Cas. No. 13,286; Racon, Abr. Verdict, X. See Neil v. Board of Trustees, 31 Ohio St. 15; Richtmyer v. Rlchtmyer, 50 Barb. ( X. V. >:: pound Co. v. Ins. Co., 40 V

The want or absence of some legal requisite; deficiency; imperfection; insufficiency. Haney-Campbell Co. v. Creamery Ass'n, 119 Iowa, 188, 93 N. W. 297; Bllven v. Sioux City, 85 Iowa, 346, 52 N. W. 246.

— Defect of form. An imperfection in the style, manner, arrangement, or non-essential parts of a legal instrument, plea, indictment, etc., as distinguished from a "defect of substance." See infra.

— Defect of parties. In pleading and practice. Insufficiency of the parties before a court in any given proceeding to give it jurisdiction and authority to decide the controversy, arising from the omission or fail-us to join plaintiffs or defendants who should have been brought in; never applied to a superfluity of parties or the improper addition of plaintiffs or defendants. Mader v. Plano Mfg. Co., 17 S. D. 553, 07 N. W. 848; Railroad Co., v. Schuyler, 17 N. Y. 608; Palmer v. Davis, 28 N. Y. 245; Beach v. Water Go., 25 Mont. 379, 65 Pac. Ill; Weatherby v. Meiklejohn, 6i Wis. 67, 2p N. W. 374.

— Defect of substance. An imperfection in the body or substantive part of a legal instrument, plea, indictment, etc., consisting in the omission of something which is essential to be set forth. State v. Startup, 39 N. J. Law, 482; Flexner v. Dickerson. 65 Ala. 132.

The want or absence of some legal requisite; deficiency; imperfection; insufliciency.

Under the covenant in a charter-party that the vessel is "tight, staunch, and strong," the owner is answerable for latent as well as for visible defects, whereby the cargo is damaged, i See Caveat; Challenoe; Core, 2.