Source: https://lonang.com/library/reference/tucker-blackstone-notes-reference/tuck-4d/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:17:49+00:00

Document:
HAVING, in the note at the end of the preceding chapter, pointed out the manner in which a suit is commenced in our courts; the intermediate process between that and the time of the defendant’s arrest, and the methods by which the plaintiff may either compel his personal appearance, or obtain judgment against him, or his bail, or the sheriff, according to the nature of the case, if the defendant still continues to stand out, or makes default; it will now be our business to show what proceedings are to be had in case he appears pursuant to the writ or stipulations of his bail-bond, given to the sheriff for his appearance.
them; and this, I presume, can only be done by a plea in abatement. In this plea the defendant must allege, that on the day of the writ purchased, he was a governor, a member of the privy council, a judge of one of the superior courts, or a sheriff, and therefore not liable to be sued by capias; or that he was a resident in a different county, or in a different district, at the time of the writ purchased, and therefore not liable, in the former case, to be taken upon a writ on which there is not the endorsement, “no bail required” pursuant to the statutes; and in the other, not liable to be taken on any writ, whether endorsed or not. And here I apprehend this plea ought to conclude, without going on to allege negative matter, as that no “non est inventus” had been returned upon a writ issued against him in the same suit in his own county. 5 or that he was not bound with any other defendant residing within the disdrict where the suit is brought in the same bond, obligation, or covenant; for of these things the plaintiff must be presumed to be cognisant, and if the fact be that a non est inventus has been returned upon a capias issued against the defendant in his own county, in the same suit; or, if the defendant be, in fact, bound in the same obligation, covenant, or contract, with another defendant residing within the district; the plaintiff ought to reply this matter affirmatively; and if it.be found for him it will avoid the plea in abatement. So, if the cause of action arose within that county, or corporation, where the suit is brought, this matter must also be affirmed by the plaintiff in his replication, instead of the contrary being negatively alleged by the defendant in his plea. And in all these cases, if there be an issue joined upon the fact, and a verdict be found for the plaintiff, he shall have judgment for his debt or damages; but if there be a demurrer to the plea, the judgment (if for the plaintiff) is, that the defendant answer over, respondeat ouster, in the law latin phrase, to his action:6 if the issue be found for the defendant or judgment be given for him upon the demurrer, the suit shall be abated, and he shall recover his costs . . ..
Where the defendant is an alien, or the citizen of any other state, (or the suit relates to lands claimed by the several parties under grants from different states), and the matter in controversy is of the value .of five hundred dollars or more, if he desires to remove the suit into the federal circuit court, he must now petition the court for that purpose,7 (or, I presume, file his petition) and must give security to appear in the federal court, and answer the plaintiff’s -suit, and thereupon the cause will be removed and the bail for his appearance are discharged: but.he must give bail to the action, in the federal court, if ruled thereto. If there be any other matter, proper to be pleaded in abatement, the defendant ought to take advantage of it at this stage of the proceedings; as if an action is brought against one executor, or one of the obligors in a joint bond, or one of the partners in a trading company, whereof there are more, the party who is sued alone may plead the special matter in abatement; which if he neglects to do at this time, he shall never have advantage of such a plea afterwards.8 And it is a general rule, that nothing shall be taken advantage of for error, which might have been pleaded in abatement.9 Here we may be permuted to express a doubt, whether, if an action be brought in a county court against two or more executors, or two or more joint obligors, or two or more partners in trade, or two or more joint defendants in any other action, and one of them be returned no inhabitant, whereby the writ abates as to him, the action can be continued against the other defendant, if disposed to take advantage of the abatement as to the first.
In the case of executors, who are all one person in the eye of the law,10 the rule seems to be, that if the writ must abate as to one, it shall abate as to all. And as to joint obligors the law seems to be, that they must be sued jointly,11 and in England, if one of the defendants in an action upon a joint obligation be not taken, the other may abate the writ. Yet, if he neglects to do so, and the plaintiff proceeds to outlawry against the defendant who is not taken, he who appeareth shall be chargeable with the whole.
1. L. V. 1794, c. 66. Sec. 25. c. 67. Sec. 19.
2. L. V. 1794, c. 67. Sec 17. 1 Wash. Rep. 153,154.
3. L. V. 1794, c. 66. Sec. 23. c. 67. Sec. 18.
4. Ibidem, c. 67. Sec 23.
5. Ibidem, c. 66. Sec. 24.
6. 2 Wils. 368. And it seems that in this case the same jury, which pass upon the plea in abatement ought, at the same time, if they find for the plaintiff to assess his damages; and that no writ of inquiry can be awarded to supply the omission. 2 Wilson. Ibidem.
7. L. U. S. 1 Cong. 1 Sess. c. 20, Sec, 12.
8. Carthew, 281. System of Pleading 13.
9. System of Pleading, P. V. Introd.
12. V. L. 1794, c. 66, Sec. 55, 36, 37.
13. See 1 Wash. Rep. 154.
14. 1 Strange, 509. 2 Wilson, 385.
15. 2 Blacks. Rep. 846. 2Esp. 72.
16. L. V. 1794, c. 66, Sec. 36.
17. See the note at the end of Note C.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.