Case Name: CHARLES FORD AND SAMUEL FORD, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM-NAME AND STYLE OF FORD & BRO., vs. GEO. G. CORNISH
Court: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1875-01
Citations: 2 MacArth. 57
Docket Number: No. 12161
Parties: CHARLES FORD AND SAMUEL FORD, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM-NAME AND STYLE OF FORD & BRO., vs. GEO. G. CORNISH.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 9
Pages: 57–59

Head Matter:
CHARLES FORD AND SAMUEL FORD, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM-NAME AND STYLE OF FORD & BRO., vs. GEO. G. CORNISH.
At Law. —
No. 12161.
I. When the declaration in an action at law is upon an account annexed thereto, and the same is duly verified, judgment will he entered for the amount due under the 75th rule, when the verification to the plea rests upon a vague and general denial, and fails to show the particulars of the defense relied upon.
II. The court, upon a motion to vacate such judgment, will lay stress upon the fact that defendant’s attorney was in the court-room when the motion was presented^ and interposed no ohjection.
III. The motion to vacate such a judgment ought to he made at the same term it is entered. Otis, J.
STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
This is an appeal from an order overruling a motion made at the circuit to set aside a judgment entered in this cause under the 75th common-law rule of tlie court.
The declaration sets up an order accepted by the defendant in the words and figures following:
“Washington, D. 0.,
“ February 12,1873.
“G. G. Cornish:
“Sir: Please pay Messrs. Ford & Bro. out of third and final payment due me on completion of your two houses on D street, near New Jersey avenue, according to contract, for 10,000 merchantable brick, or enough to complete same; and also their bill for front brick furnished at the same place.”
“C. H. HOLDEN.
“Accepted.
“G. G. CORNISH.”
The common counts are added, and accompanying them is an account or bill of particulars of the kind and quantity of bricks which had been furnished by plaintiff upon said draft ■or acceptance, and a balance of $434.50 is claimed to be due and unpaid.
The declaration was verified by the affidavit of one of the plaintiffs, “ who, being first duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is one of the plaintiffs in the above-entitled cause, and that the account hereto annexed as-stated is just and true, as he is informed and believes; and that the amount claimed thereby, $434,50, is justly payable by the said defendant, G. G. Cornish, to the said plaintiffs, Charles Ford and Samuel Ford, with interest from the 1st day of Decenber, 1873, exclusive of all set-offs and just grounds of defense.”
The plea of defendant merely states that he never was indebted as alleged, and is verified by his own affidavit, as follows:
“On this 1st day of June, A. D. 1874, personally appeared before me, clerk of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, G. G. Cornish, the defendant in the above-entitled cause, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that the above plea is true, and that the plaintiffs have no right to any part of the money claimed, iu their declaration.
“GEORGE G. CORNISH.”
On the 1st day of June, 1874, a judgment was entered iu favor of the plaintiffs for the amount of the demand, for want of a sufficient verification to the plea under the 75th rule of *■ court. A motion was made at the October term of said circuit court to vacate said judgment; and affidavits were read in support of and in opposition to said application, and on November 24,1874, the same was overruled, and the defendants took an appeal to the general term.
I. W. Ford, attorney for plaintiff.
J. Daniels, contra.

Opinion:
By the court:
We are of the opinion that the verification of the declaration is in compliance with the rule referred to, but that the plea is not.
The latter only sets up a vague and general denial, and fails to show the particulars of the defense relied upon. We also lay stress upon the fact that defendant's attorney seems to have been in court when the motion -tf-as presented for judgment, and interposed no objection.
The order appealed from must be affirmed.
Olin, J.,
was of opinion that the motion to vacate the judgment ought to have been made at the same term it was entered, and that it could not be entertained at any subsequent term of the court below.