Case Name: SEELY AND MARSELIS v. BOON
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1792-05
Citations: 1 N.J.L. 161
Docket Number: 
Parties: SEELY AND MARSELIS v. BOON.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
SEELY AND MARSELIS v. BOON.
1. It is a good plea in abatement that defendants are sued by their surnames alone, without mentioning their Christian names. Such defect, however, is cured by appearance and verdict, and cannot be taken advantage of in error.
2. When judgment is affirmed in the superior court, the practice is to sue out execution there without taking the cause down by a procedendo.
Certiorari to Justice Peck.
Giles, for the plaintiffs in certiorari,
who had been defendants below, took an exception on the record, that it appeared the action was brought, and judgment against them below, in their surnames alone, as Seely and Marselis. He contended, in support of the objection, that law and usage were both violated bv such a procedure. Every man is known and must be impleaded by his Christian name, or name of baptism ; that the defendants could not plead this recovery in bar of another suit for the same demand. He cited Fortescue 108; 1 T. R. 517; 2 T. R. 673, to prove that uniform usage was an evidence of the law, and should not be deviated from.
Leake, contra,
contended that, though the error might be fatal on a plea in abatement, it was cured by appearance, defence, and verdict. He cited 1 Bac. Abr. 9; 2 Bac. Abr. 492,4; Lloyd v. Williams, 3 Wils. 141; 2 Sir. 1232; Barnes 495; Hole v. Finch, 2 Wils. 393; Stat. 16 and 17 Car. II., cap. 8; 5 Com. Dig. 331; 3 Burr. 1728. See also Taylor 35, State v. Quinnery, and 3 T. R. 611; Doe v. Butcher, Dall. 410.
Leahe cited Robins v. Whitten,
to show that the execution ought to issue from this court on an affirmance of the judgment of the court below.

Opinion:
[139] The objection should have been taken advantage of in abatement; it is too late now.
Per Cur.
Affirm the judgment.
Per Cur.
This is the practice at present; formerly it was either way; some practitioners took rules forprocedendos.