Case Name: Fannie M. Buker vs. James Gibson Carroll and Emma J. Carroll, Defendants, and Ananias Ennis, Terre Tenant
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1897-12-01
Citations: 1 Penne. 112
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fannie M. Buker vs. James Gibson Carroll and Emma J. Carroll, Defendants, and Ananias Ennis, Terre Tenant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 112–115

Head Matter:
Fannie M. Buker vs. James Gibson Carroll and Emma J. Carroll, Defendants, and Ananias Ennis, Terre Tenant.
Affidavit of Demand—Practice.
1. - In a scire facias on a judgment to extend a lien upon lands, an affidavit of demand which merely states in the caption that A is terre tenant, without stating how he became such or anything further regarding the matter, is sufficient.
2. Time extended for filing affidavit of defence, in the absence of opposing counsel.
(December 1, 1897.)
Fore, C. J., and Spruance and Boyce, J. J., sitting.
Martin B. Burris for plaintiff.
John H. Rodney for terre tenant.
Superior Court, New Castle County,
November Term, 1897.
This was a scire facias on a judgment to extend a lien upon lands. An affidavit of demand was filed setting forth the following :
‘ ‘State of Illinois, j
Cook County, j ss"
“Be it remembered, That, on this eighth day of November, A. D. 1897, personally appeared before me, Eynam A. White, Notary Public for the State of Illinois, in Cook County, Fanny M. Buker, the plaintiff in the above stated cause, who being by me first duly sworn upon the Holy Evangels of Almighty God, did depose and say that hereto annexed is a duly certified transcript of the judgment sued upon in this action, and that the sum demanded is eighteen hundred and seven dollars, and interest thereon from the first day of October, A. D. 1892, and that she verily believes that the same is justly and truly due. ’ ’
Mr. Rodney objected to the sufficiency of the affidavit of demand, on the ground that it did not set out the connecting links showing the relation of the terre tenant, Ananias Ennis, to the judgment. That his name merely appeared in the caption of the affidavit which set forth the cause of action, but that the affidavit should show why the claim was made against Ananias Ennis.
Mr. Burris contended that the plaintiff was not obliged to to show that in the affidavit, as the law stated that it should be made according to practice and law and that it never was the practice under the existing law to make the affidavit in the manner contended for by the counsel for the defendant, or in other words to set out in the affidavit a brief of title.
Revised Code, Section 4, p. 789.

Opinion:
Spruancp J:—
The objection made to this affidavit is that, except in the caption of the affidavit, it is not stated that Ananias Ennis is the terre tenant, or how he became a terre tenant.
We have given this matter careful consideration, and the majority of the Court are of the opinion that this affidavit is sufficient.
So far as my experience goes, it has never been the practice in ordinary suits on judgments or mortgages where terre tenants are made parties defendant, to make any allegations respecting them in the body of the affidavit. The names of the plaintiff and defendant and terre tenant are stated in the caption of the affidavit, and without making any allegations whatever in respect to the terre tenant the party swears, as in this action, that " hereto annexed is a duly certified transcript of the judgment (or mortgage) sued upon in this action and that the sum demanded is justly and truly due." We think this follows the ordinary practice and that it would be dangerous to require specific allegations as to how the terre tenant became such, etc.
This decision can do no harm as the time has not yet expired in which an affidavit of defense can be filed.
We therefore hold that the affidavit is sufficient.