Case Name: Lewis L. Wilcox, Administrator of Johanna G. Wilcox, deceased, vs. The Wilmington City Railway Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1899-05-08
Citations: 2 Penne. 157
Docket Number: Action on the case No. 194
Parties: Lewis L. Wilcox, Administrator of Johanna G. Wilcox, deceased, vs. The Wilmington City Railway Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 157–170

Head Matter:
Lewis L. Wilcox, Administrator of Johanna G. Wilcox, deceased, vs. The Wilmington City Railway Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware.
Case—Practice—Pleading— Venire—Damages for Death of Married Woman—Measure of Damages—Evidence—Funeral Expenses—Nonsuit.
1. A case at issue, either at law or on the facts, at any time prior to the 20 days required for publication, should be added to the argument list or the trial list by prothonotary, and the time necessarily consumed by the printer in publishing the list should not work to the detriment of suitors in getting their cases at issue and advertised.
2. Where there are several counts in a declaration, and the defendant has filed separate special demurrers, assigning in each special and different causes of demurrer, he has a right to have an issue in law upon each one of the separate demurrers, if instead of joining issue upon each of the special demurrers the plaintiff treats them as one general demurrer to the declaration, it is irregular and not consistent with the practice or general rules of pleading. In the latter case the joinder in demurrer will be stricken off and the case stricken from the trial list because it was not at issue on the demurrer when it was put upon the list.
3. Under the rules of Court, when an amendment is asked for it must be presented to the Court in writing.
4. Where a declaration has been amended and pleas filed toj certain counts and other counts demurred to, but no replications or joinder in demurrer filed by the plaintiff at the time of the issuing of the venire or thereafter, said venire will be quashed on the ground that it was improperly issued, because there was no issue of fact to be fried by the jury.
5. In an action by an administrator for damages for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, which is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant’s servants in running a street car, it is not competent to ask a witness where the conductor was after the car stopped, the deceased being then under the front of the car. What the conductor was doing after the accident could not enter into the question as to the careless running at the time the accident happened.
6. A witness cannot be asked whether the deceased was a good woman or bad woman, but may be asked, “ What was the health of the deceased.” And it is competent to inquire as to her industry, if tending to show that the deceased woman’s life had a value as a life independent of her husband, but not if the industry referred to had reference to decedent’s work around her house—her own home.
7. The husband may be asked whether the deceased received any money per week independent of himself, as it goes to show the value of thé life of the decedent independent of the husband, but the plaintiff will not be permitted to show what the deceased received from her husband per week and what she saved from that amount after paying household expenses. The question will be limited to what was the value of the life independent of the husband and his relations to her.
8. In such an action the question, “ Was the estate of the deceased put to any expense because of funeral expenses,” held inadmissible.
9. It is competent to show the earning capacity of the deceased,but the question must have reference to her earning capacity at the time of her death. And in order to ascertain the measure of damages, the plaintiff will be permitted to show the age of the deceased, the condition of her health at the time of her death, that she was an industrious woman, and what were her habits in respect to economy or saving.
to. Nonsuit will be granted when plaintiff has failed to connect the accident with the defendant.
(November 26, 1898;
May 8, 1899.)
Lobe, C. J., and Spbuance and Gbubb, J. J., sitting at the November Term, 1898. (Trial beginning May 8, 1899, before Lobe, C. J., and Pennewill and Boyce, J. J.)
Robert G. Harman and Horace G. Knowles for plaintiff.
Willard Saulsbury and Walter H. Hayes for defendant.
Superior Court, New Castle County,
November Term, 1898, (and February Term, 1899.)
Action on the case (No. 194
September Term, 1897).
Demurrer to the narr was filed October 21, 1898. The trial list went to press on November 2d, and was delivered to the prothonotary November 7th, twenty-one days before the convening of the November Term of Court. Rule No. 13 of the Rules of the Superior Court, requires the prothonotary to have the trial list in the hands of the Bar, with the cases advertised twenty days before the convening of Court. Joinder in the demurrer in the above stated case was filed on the 7th day of November, the same day that the trial list was distributed.
Counsel for plaintiff
contended that as the case was at issue twenty-one days before Court, and notwithstanding that the prothonotary’s copy was in the hands of the printer when issue on the demurrer was joined, yet that the Court should direct that this case be placed on the argument list.
The Court unanimously ruled that a case coming at issue on pleading or on demurrer any time prior to the twenty days required for publication, should be added to the trial or argument list by the prothonotary with pen and ink, and that the time necessarily consumed by the printer in publishing the trial list should not work to the detriment of suitors in getting their cases at issue and advertised.
There were four counts in the narr filed in the case, and to each count a special demurrer was filed by defendant’s attorneys.
The following joinder in demurrer was filed by plaintiff ’s attorneys, viz:
"And the plaintiff, by Harman & Knowles, his attorneys, saith that the said declaration and the matters therein contained in manner and form as the same are herein stated and set forth are sufficient in law for him, the said plaintiff, to have and maintain his aforesaid action thereof against the said defendant, and the said plaintiff is ready to prove the same as the Court here shall direct and award.”
On December 13, 1898, defendant’s attorney came into Court and moved that the joinder in demurrer be stricken from the record and that the case be taken from the argument list, for the reason that there was no joinder in any issue in the case and that the Court could not formulate any judgment on the demurrer and the joinder in demurrer filed.
The plaintiff’s attorneys contended that the joinder in demur rer was applicable to each demurrer to each of the counts in the declaration and took issue on all of them; and that the demurrers filed were general demurrers for duplicity, and that the plaintiff was not required to file a joinder in demurrer to each demurrer.
Note.—Certain preliminary questions were decided in this case at the November Term, 1898 ; the trial not taking place until May 8, 1899. See also 1 Pennewill, 243.

Opinion:
Spruance, J.:
This declaration contains four counts. In general, the theory of a declaration containing different counts is, that each count is for a different cause of action.
To each of the counts of the declaration the defendant's attorney has filed a separate special demurrer, assigning in each special and different causes of demurrer.
He has a right to have an issue in law upon each one of these separate demurrers, and he has not got it. Instead of joining issue upon each of these special demurrers, the plaintiff's attorneys have chosen to treat these four separate demurrers as one general demurrer to the declaration, which they are not.
This is irregular, and there is, so far as we know, no practice to sustain it. The argument in favor of it does not commend itself to the judgment of the Court, nor is it consistent with the general rules of pleading.
We think this joinder in demurrer should be stricken off, and that the case should be stricken from the trial list, because it was not at issue on the demurrers when it was put upon the list, and it is so ordered.