The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-05-26
LAW CASE.

LoMAX VS.. HoRD.
1t is now settled that declaration in
fresfass, or case tor tori, which sesins
. for that whereas" &c. and continues by
way of recital to the end, is insuficient-and
that such error is fatal even after zerlkct or
general demurrer.1
Alter the decision of the cases of Hord's
eX'x. v. Dtshman( 2 Hen. Il Mum. s95), and
H1oore,s admir-. v. Da7v,rey &c. Nov. 1907
in the former of which it was held that the
9nod cum Or e 7uhereas" in declaration
In trespass, which continues by way of re-
citai to the end, is fatal after general de-
mu'rer, and in'the latter that the same er-
rer is fatal after a verdfct, similar exCel,-
ton was taken to the declaration in this
cause, during the same term. 1t was an
action on the case brought in the District
Court OF Fredericksburg, by the appellant
Lomdr J against the appellee (Hord for
champarty. There were two Counts in the
declaration the first of which states in
Substance, that the defendant procured GER
tam GGzcin Cor5in to institute SUIT agains.
the plaintiff in the District Court Of Aimg u
Queen, to recover a tract of land ; and that
the defendant prosecuted the suit at his own
costs, upon an agreement that he should
have a part of the land the second count
merely varied the mode of stating the cause
OF action; but both counts commenced with
- zvhereas," and continued by way of re-
cItal To the end of the declaration Piea.
:" Not Guilty" Yerdict 6 600 damages,
subject to the opinion of the court upon a
demurrer to evidence, offered by the defen-
dapt, and which the plaintiff refused to join
TIL compelled by the court.
The plaintiff having introduced written
and parol evidence, proving the agency of
Hord in the investigation OF the title, his
payment OF officers fees, and that an agree
ment was actually signed between Cor6in
and ford, by which the latter was to have
one nall OF the lands, but that OH receiving
the advice OF Counsel that it would ruin him
Vt ne persisted, he declared that he had droh-
pea me prosecution and the plaintiffhaving
proved farther, the recovery of the land by
Cor6tn, 1t appeared in evidence from answers
made ny the plaintiffs witness tointerroga-
tories propounded by the defendant, that,
when the suit was brought, he (the witness)
was counsel for Cor6in, and recetUed his in
@rncftonS and fee from Cor6in himself, 7vho
dHended the surveys, Tie courts, and The
progress 0fthe cause in fcrSon, and that he
never had the smallest reason to believe that
the defendant, directly or indirectly con-
cerned himself in the prosec ton of the suit,
but That, on the contrary, from every circum-
stance which fell under his notice, he believed
MN wholly uDconcerned; the said witness
having about three or four years before the
'u'' vas DiouBht, ADVISED MN against II, ana
represented his danger; at which time, as
the witness thought the defendant seemed
determined, and declared his intention not
to conference.-the further with it. At this stage
OF the trial, the demurrer was offered by the
defendant. The court compelled the plain
TIN to JON and, on argument, adiudged the
law to be for the defendant from which judy
rDent, the plaintiff appealed TO this court.
Inc cause was very fully argued on the
18th OF November, 1903, by Wirt for the
appellant, and by Bots for the appellee on
the point, 7ohether the plaintiff under me
circumstance Of this case ought to haze
been compelled to join in demurrer; When
BOTS in the conclusion of his argument relied
on the quod cum in the declaration, as deci-
siye against the plaintiff; even if the merits,
and the question relative to the drmprrcr.