Case ID: ky_77/html/0540-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE ELLIOTT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cases 19, 20 — PETITION ORDINARY
    Feb. 18.
    Butler, &c. v. Church of The Immaculate Conception. Highland, &c. v. Same.
    APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.
    I. Right to require plaintipp to swear to his petition is waived BY answer — after having thus waived his right, defendant can not regain it, by withdrawing his answer.
    J. R. HALLAM por appellants.
    1. An objection to a pleading for want of verification is essentially in the nature of a plea in abatement, and is waived if not taken advantage of before response filed. (Meador v. Turpin, 4 Met. 93.)
    2. Plaintiff was entitled to have time, until the calling of the cause for trial, to verify his petition. (Civil Code, sec. 137.)
    3. The cause of action being founded on a written contract filed with the petition, the court below erred in requiring a verification. (Civil Code, sec. 116, subsec. 3.) .
    R. W. NELSON por appellee.
    1. The withdrawal of the answer left the case as if no answer had been filed.
    
      An objection for want of, or defect in, verification may be made at any time until after the commencement of the trial. (Civil Code, secs. 137,138.)
   JUDGE ELLIOTT

delivered the opinion oe the court.

These suits sought a recovery against appellee for moneys borrowed of the plaintiffs in its name by its agent P. Guilfoyle. The amounts deposited were evidenced by a writing, executed by Guilfoyle, and by it a promise is made to return the money on demand of the plaintiffs, with six per cent interest. The writing is filed, but as it is not the foundation of the action, it is not such a writing as dispenses with an affidavit to plaintiffs’ petition.

Plaintiffs filed their suits, not having sworn to their petitions, and the defendant, after it had filed its demurrer, and it had been overruled, and it had filed its answer, was permitted to withdraw it, and then on its motion a rule was awarded against appellants to swear to their petitions, and their failure to do so was punished by a dismissal of their suits.

This ruling of the court was erroneous. This court has decided substantially that after answer filed, by the defendant it is too late to insist that the plaintiff shall swear to his pleading, because by the failure to make the question till after answer the defendant has waived his right to make it.

In this case the defendant had not only demurred to the plaintiffs’ petitions, but had answered to the merits of their claims. The plea that plaintiff has not sworn to his petition is in the nature of a plea in abatement, which at the common law could never be insisted on unless aptly relied on before an answer was put in to the merits of the controversy.

Wherefore the judgments áre reversed, and each of these cases, which were heard together, is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.