Case Name: Ellett v. Vaughan
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1806-04
Citations: 6 Call 77
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Ellett v. Vaughan.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 1087–1088

Head Matter:
*Ellett v. Vaughan.
[April, 1806.]
Pleading--Verdict-Effect. — After verdict, a general replication, to a special plea is sufficient.
Vaughan brought an action of slander against Ellett; who demurred to the declaration : which was afterwards amended; and upon setting aside the office judgment, obtained upon the amended declaration, the defendant, having leave “to plead in addition to the plea by him formerly pleaded,” put in a special plea: To which ‘‘the plaintiff replied generally.” Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the district court; and the defendant petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of super-sedeas.
Wickham, for the petitioner.
If the issues are regularly made up, the verdict is not responsive to them; and the memorandum of what is called the real verdict, will not help it, for the reasons given the other day in the case of Vaughan v. Dreeland, (ante, 12.) But the issues are not regularly made up; for there is no replication to the special plea. The general replication is not sufficient; for there is a difference between a replication and a plea; the act of assembly allowing several matters to be contained in the latter, but not in the former; and a general replication to a special plea necessarily involves various distinct things. The court, therefore, cannot by any intendment aid him; for they will not presume that he meant to apply his general replication to any particular fact, when he has left the whole at large, and thereby the issue multifarious. 1 Wash. 155; 2 Call, 379.
Hay, contra.
The replication denies all the facts contained in the plea; and that puts the parties at issue. Co. Litt. 126. The most that can be said against it is, that there is some irregularity in joining the issue: But that is not material after verdict. 2 Wash. 1, 71, 364; 2 Call, 514. Multifariousness in the issue is no objection: for the ^defendant chose to rely on various matters of defence; and therefore, the plaintiff was obliged to negative the whole, either specially or generally ; otherwise he would not have answered the plea; and it could make no difference, to the detendant, whether all his facts were denied together, or each one separately.
Wickham, in reply.
The cases, cited by the counsel on the other side, do not apply; for, in them, the pleas had denied the/whole declaration, and the replication operated merely as a similter to maintain the declaration, and complete the issue.
Cur. adv. vult.
The principal case Is cited in Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W. Va. 216.

Opinion:
LYONS, President,
delivered the resolution of the court, that the supersedeas should be denied.