Case Name: Daniel Holbrook versus James Pratt
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1804-10
Citations: 1 Will. 73
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniel Holbrook versus James Pratt.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 73–74

Head Matter:
Daniel Holbrook versus James Pratt.
Quod cum in trespass bad on general demurrer. No amendment after joinder in demurer. Qu.
This was an action of trespass. The defendant was attached to answer to D. H., of W., in the county of W., and state of Connecticut; for that whereas the defendant at R., in said county, &c.
* The defendant demurred generally; and the plaintiff joined in demurrer.
Two exceptions were taken to the declaration: 1. that there is no positive averment of a trespass committed, but that it is laid by way of recital only, under a quod cum; 2. that there is a want of venue; the trespass, if any, is laid in Connecticut; “ in said county ” must refer to the last antecedent, which is the county of W., in Connecticut.
T. Jfilliams for the plaintiff.
Lisle for the defendant.

Opinion:
The Court (Dana, C. J., Strong, and Thacker, justices) gave no opinion as to the second exception; but they held the first to be fatal. The counsel for the plaintiff moved to amend; refused; being after joinder in demurrer.
Declaration quashed.
See post, p. 104, Walker & Al. vs. Maxwell, where an amendment of a plea was allowed after joinder in demurrer.
.It has since been unanimously decided, and the opinion of the Court elaborately given by Parsons, C. J., that quod cum is bad in trespass only upon special demurrer; post, vol. ii. 358, Coffin vs. Coffin.
See post, vol. ii. 82, Perkins vs. Burbank, where the Court seemed to restrict the rule that amendments and repleaders should not be granted, after joinder in demurrer, to cases where the proposed amendment went to the merits of the action