Case ID: johns_2/html/0096-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Service against Heermance.
    To a plea of a discharge under the., insolvent act the plaintiff replied, setting forth all the grounds on which the discharge ismade void by the act, in the On words of the act. demurrer the replica** ion was held to be ba¡d» The plaintiff must specify the particular frairl on which he means to reset aside^tli **0 discharge.-
    This 'was an action of debt, on. a judgment in this court- The defendant pleaded his discharge under the insolvent act, and set out the discharge verbatim in the plea, which recited all the proceedings under the act* The plaintiff replied, that the defendant had been guilty of perjury, by concealing a part of his estate, &c. and then stated that he had done each of the other acts for which a discharge is máde void in the words of the I2th section of the act. The defendant demurred to the replication, and assigned for causes of demurrer,. J. Because the replication alleges that the defendant was guilty of perjury, by concealing a part of his estate and effects; but does not state what estate or effects, or how they were concealed, Ac. 2. That the plaintiff alleges, that the defendant received a debt due to him before the assignment,without stating from whom, or with what intent it was received, or apprising the defendant of any particular facts which would be tried, in case issue was joined thereon* 8. The plaintiff alleges, that the defendantdid.secrete some part of his estate, and some books or writings relative thereto, without showing how or when, or particu* larizing what part of his estate, or books, or writings, &,c. 4. Because, the plaintiff alleges, that the defendant concealed some or one of his creditors, or the amount of the sum or sums due to some or one of them, without stating what creditor or creditors the defendants did conceal, or positively that he had concealed any, or what sura or sums due, &e. 5. Because the plaintiff alleges that the defendant did procure some person to become a petitioning creditor, &c. without mentioning what person, <fcc. 6. Because, the replication contains a great variety of points, but no one single distinct point, on which the defendant could take issue. To this demurrer there was a joinder on the part of the plaintiff.
    
      Evertson, in support of the demurrer.
    1. The replication wants precision, and is uncertain and multifarious. There is no single point presented, on which issue could be joined, so as to try its merits. One point ought to be directly stated, and not a variety of points in the alternative. The plaintiff has taken the very words of the 18th section of the act, in which all the grounds of avoiding the discharge are set forth in general terms. He ought to. have selected some one point, and stated it so precisely, as would enable the defendant fairly to take issue upon it. He cited 5 Comyn's Digest, Pleader, E. 4. E. 27. F. 20. 5. Bac. A,b. Pleas and pleadings, 1. 3> Bile. Comm. 308. System of pleading, 222. Styles’ Practical Register, 236.
    
      Riggs, contra.
    
    There is no provision in the act as to pleading. Must not the case therefore be governed by the common law .rules of pleading ? If the defendant in his plea had set forth the grounds which entitled him to a discharge, the plaintiff might select one of them, on which to take issue. The replication was intended to put in issue all the grounds for avoiding the defendant’s discharge. Suppose all the causes are true, is the plaintiff obliged to confine himself to one? May he not avail himself of all of them ? If a part}7 has several causes of action, or several grounds of defence, there is no good reason why he may not avail himself of the whole. If the plantiff is compelled to select one ground for avoiding the discharge, and should fail on that, he would be precluded from availing himself of the others, though sufficient. This mode 0f replying is reasonable and convenient. If it be sufficient to set forth in the plea, in general terms, a conjormtty with the act, it must be sufficient to set forth in general terms the grounds of avoidance in the words of the act. It be very embarrassing to the pleader to set forth particularly, all the objects concealed ; to specify dates, names, &c. This is a peculiar case, arising under the provisions of the statute, and ought not to be confined by the strict rules of pleading at the common law. There is no hardship, or inconvenience in obliging the deferdant to prove that he has, in all things, conformed to the act, or in other words, to repel all the objections made to his discharge on the part of the plaintiff.
    
      Harrison, in reply, was stopped by the court.
    
      
       S. C. P *
    
   Per Curiam

The replication is clearly bad, for it does not state wherein there was purjury or fraud in obtaining the discharge. The plaintiff ought to lay his finger on the particular fact, or fraud, on which he means to rely, otherwise, the defendant can never know what he is to repel.

Judgment for the defendant. 
      
       The plaintiff’s counsel, before the rule for judgment was entered informed the court, that he had learned since the argument, that the Bad died a few days since. The court said, that the defendant take his rule, or not, at his discretion. The defendant, accord-¡ugh’, took judgment.