Case Name: THE TRUSTEES OF THE DOVER SCHOOL HOUSE v. HENRY McFARLAN AND OTHERS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1834-09
Citations: 14 N.J.L. 471
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE TRUSTEES OF THE DOVER SCHOOL HOUSE v. HENRY McFARLAN AND OTHERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 471–471

Head Matter:
THE TRUSTEES OF THE DOVER SCHOOL HOUSE v. HENRY McFARLAN AND OTHERS.
By the terms oi the statute, Rev. Laws, 639, sec. 34, the defendants are confined to their plea of title. The legislature intended, by permitting a defendant to plead title, and give bond in the manner prescribed in the act, to afford him an opportunity of having his title tried in a court of competent jurisdiction, but not for tlse purpose of getting a trial in this court upon any other ground of defence. Hence, if the defendant pleads any other plea than that of title, this court will, on motion, order it stricken out with costs.
An action of trespass quare clausum fregit, was commenced by the plaintiffs against the defendants, in a court for the trial of small causes. On the return of the summons, the plaintiffs-filed their state of demand, and the defendants, protesting that there was no such corporation, pleaded title and gave bond under the statute. Itev. Laws 639, sec. 33, &c. Thereupon, the plaintiffs commenced this action, and declared for the same trespass complained of below. The defendants, instead of pleading title, pleaded nul tiel corporation, and this was an application to strike out such plea.
J. W. Mill, for plaintiffs.
S. Scudder, for defendants.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hornblower, C. J.
This case is too plain to admit of doubt. By the very terms of the statute, Rev. Laws 639, sec. 34, the defendants are confined to their plea of title. The legislature intended, by permitting a defendant to plead title and give bond, in the manner prescribed in the act, to afford him an opportunity of having his title tried in a court of competent jurisdiction, but not for the purpose of getting a trial in this court upon any other ground of defence. The course attempted by the defendants, would convert the proceeding into a means of simply changing the jurisdiction, for the purpose of a trial in this court upon any issue that might be formed. The cases are all against the defendants. Westervelt v. Merenus, 2 Penn. Rep. 693; Strong v. Smith, 2 Caines Rep. 28; Snedicker v. White, 6 Halst. 87; Marsh v. Berry, 7 Cowen Rep. 344; Ellet & al. v. Pullen, 7 Halst. 357, 359, 362. The plea must be stricken out with costs.