Case Name: Mariah L. Smith, Executrix, &c., Pltff in Error, v. Archibald P. Dysart, Deft in Error
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1851-06
Citations: 12 Ill. 458
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mariah L. Smith, Executrix, &c., Pltff in Error, v. Archibald P. Dysart, Deft in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 458–458

Head Matter:
Mariah L. Smith, Executrix, &c., Pltff in Error, v. Archibald P. Dysart, Deft in Error.
ERROR TO PUTNAM.
Where a record shows pleas, to which no objection is made, and to which a demurrer was overruled, and upon which a judgment was entered for the defendant, this Court will not disturb the judgment.
This was an action of covenant, brought in the Putnam Circuit Court by the plaintiff in error, as executrix of William Smith, against Dysart. The defendant pleaded, seven pleas. To the first, second, third and fourth, there was a replication and issue to the country. To the fifth, sixth, and seventh pleas there were demurrers, which were overruled. The fifth plea alleges, that plaintiff is not executrix. The sixth plea declares, that said Mariah L. Smith has not been appointed, and is not, nor ever has been, executrix of the last will and testament of said deceased; nor has she produced, either the last will and testament of said deceased, after having proved the same in any other state or territory of the United States, or a certified copy thereof, with letters testamentary, under the seal of the Court where the same were obtained, and a certified copy, &c., showing that letters were granted, &c. To these pleas, after demurrer was overruled, no replication was filed.
E. S. Leland, for Pltff in Error.
0. Peters, for Deft in Error.

Opinion:
Caton, J.
The record shows at least two pleas to which no objection is now made; a demurrer to which was overruled; upon which a judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, which is a perfect bar to the plaintiff's right of action. We shall therefore decline .entering upon the investigation of the question which was argued, as to whether the seventh plea was obnoxious to a general demurrer, or whether it should have been demurred to specially. 'The defendant is certainly entitled to have the judgment affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.