The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-03-16

The first error assigned is to the ruling
of the court sustaining the demurrer 10
the plea. and in support Of this assign
ment we are referred to the case Of the
New Orleans. jackson and Great North
crn Railroad Company vs.. Harris, decided
bv this court.
The rlea under consideration does not
,,rasant n case either within the reason or
spirit Of the principles decided in the case
referred TO. There is no allegation show
INC any injury or damage. present or con-
terminated, resulting. or likely to result
10 the subscriber on account Of the new
privilege or power conferred by the last
act of the Legislature on defendants IN
error. Ii j. simply alleged that they have
acccutpd an amendment OF Their charter,
comforting. among other powers ana pflyi-
lcccs. the right to construct this branch.
It, not even alleged that they intend or
threaten to avail themselves OF the power
t. the injury Of this subscrlber-and sure
" il will not be said that he should be
absoved from hi, contact OF subscription
unless some act towards the consumma-
ton Of the purpose of which he complains
i actually done. The mere illegal ot0'-
nan. even if this were shown to exist, could
not afford the uartv q ground Of defence
might properly seek elsewhere. In the
case cited from 9th Miss. 5l7, the stock
Of Ovcrton Harris had beed actually trans
ferrcd from the company TO which he sub
-cribed to another and wholly different
CORPORATION. and that by majority vote,
without his consent. and suit was lnStltu-
ted against him ON hi, subscription by the
tran,tcrrc the New Orleans Company. to
enforce it. payment 20 them. He denied
the power Of the Legislature, or the Can
ton. Kosciusko, Aberdeen and Tuscumbia
/ Railroad Company. or Of the New Orleans
I Company. or all combined, to appropriate
. hi, stock. or to transfer it without his con-
sent: and his right thus to demur was
sustained. No such question i here pre-
! -ented. nor is there any ground Of defence
| stated in the plea upon which the plaintiff
in error can be permitted to rely.
The next ground of error complained Of
Is. that on Sustaining the demurrer to the
plea the court should have rendered the
usual Judgment Of respondent custer.
1t will be remembered that this Is a suit
against an administrator, ind that by our
law administrators, executors and collec-
tors. are not required 10 plead specially,
that under the general issue they are per
mittnd To give in evidence any special
.
therefore. this or any other plea filed hy
the plaintiff in error. would have amoun-
ted only to the general issue. And it
would seem from the eases of Nettervillc
& Bovd V. Stevens ct al. , Howard, Miss.
r. p. GAG. How'd Miss. L. p. 3j4, Ander-
son ct al. vs. Patrick ct al. p Miss. T. 40,
Green y. Carroll, and on general prlncl-
piles that when the general issue Is already
filed. ii i not allowable for the defendant
to cucumber the record with useless pleas
which only amount to the same things
The plea was therefore demurrable on the
ground that it amounted to the general
issue already on file. And because every
9th orplea which could by possibility be
plead by the defendant below under our
statute would only amount to the same
thing this court would not require a
: Judgment to be pronounced by the court
below. and hence the Judgment of respon-
: deaf custer was wholly unnecessary under
these circumstances.
= 1t is again objected as error. that the
ID demurrer should not have been noticed
7 under our statute, as no special causes
u We're assigned We think the omission il
y the plea was so essential. that judgment
according to law and the right of the caus'
IS could not be given on it and hence only
y general demurrer was necessary.
y lis lastly insisted that there was NJ
u Ioinder in demurrer. Noioinder was nee
pa essary. see article ll2 on p. 49j Of the Cod,
u which had then gone into effect and plea
" ding act of 1850.
i- There beingno error in the record &C
y cording to the views here expressed tn,
"a judgment below will be affirmed.
n