Case Name: Deheaulme, et al. vs. Boisneuf
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1799-10
Citations: 4 H. & McH. 413
Docket Number: 
Parties: Deheaulme, et al. vs. Boisneuf.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 4
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1799.
Deheaulme, et al. vs. Boisneuf.
Action of assumpsit, wherein the defendant pleaded Sime pleas, viz.
First. To the jurisdiction of the court — That the plaintiffs and the defendant are aliens, under the allegiance of the French Mepublic.
Second. In abatement — That the plaintiffs are alien enemies of the United States, citizens of France.
Third. In abatement — That the plaintiffs are alien enemies of Maryland, citizend of France.
Fourth. In bar — That the plaintiffs are alien enemies of the United States, citizens of France.
Fifth. In bar — That the plaintiffs are alien enemies of Maryland, citizens of France.
Sixth. In bar — Mon assumpsit.
Seventh. In bar — Mon assumpsit infra tres annos, as to the first count in the declaration.
Eighth. In bar — Same plea as to the second and third counts in the declaration; and
Minth. In bar — Jlctio non accrevit infra tres annos, as to the second and third counts in the declaration.
Martin, (Attorney-General.) and Shaaff, for the plaintiffs,
moved the court to strike out some, of the pleas. They contended, that sis the pleas in abatement were without affidavit, they ought not to be received; that pleas its abatement and in bar, could not be pleaded together. — 5 Com. Dig. 69. They asked, what course ought to be pursuecj in this case? Would the court put the party to bis election to stand to which plea he thinks proper, or make him rely on some fair plea, viz. the general issue? That as the defendant was under a rule to plead by a particular day, the court would put him to the general issue pleas, as he did not comply with the rule. They contended, that the pleas of the act of limitations were all wrong pleaded, not one of them answering the. whole declaration; that the manner of pleading is, to plead as to one count such matter, and to another such matter, all in one plea; and not, as in the present case, a separate independent plea as to part of the declaration, and say nothing as to the residue. That if a plea begins with an answer to the whole declaration, but is only an answer to a part of it, ,the whole is nought, and the plaintiff may demur. But if it be pleaded as to part, and be in truth only an answer to part, it will be a discontinuance, and the plaintiff may take judgment as per nil didti Salk„ 1T9. 5. Com. Dig. 64.
Mason and Winchester, against the motion,
cited Co. Lift. 314, a. where it is said a person may plead one plea in bar of one part, and another plea in bar of another part.

Opinion:
The Court directed tho first, second and third, pleas, to be stricken out, and permitted the other pleas to stand.