Case Name: Parsons against Ely and Parsons
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1818-06
Citations: 2 Conn. 377
Docket Number: 
Parties: Parsons against Ely and Parsons :
Judges: Trumbuu,, EdmoNd, Smith, Brais arh and Peters, Js. were oí the same opinion.
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 377–382

Head Matter:
Parsons against Ely and Parsons :
in error.
THIS was an action on the case against Enoch Parsons, Esq. Sheriff of Middlesex county, for an escape.
in the writ the plaintiffs described themselves thus : “ David Ely and Samuel Parsons, both of the city and state of JVew-York, merchants in company under the firm of Ely ⅜* Parsons.” The defendant pleaded in abatement, first, that the plaintiffs were neither of them inhabitants of this state, and that they did not, when this writ was granted, give any security to prosecute their said action to effect, and answer all damages in case they should fail to make their plea good : secondly, that said writ was originally granted out, and re-i urnable to the city court, at the March term, 1818, and that after said writ was signed by Elijah Hubbard, Esq. justice of the peace, the following alterations were made therein, viz. the term of the court to which the writ was returnable, . was altered from April to May; the time of the alleged escape was altered from the 14th day of February, 1817, to the 25th day of Jlpril; and the date of the writ was altered from the 14th day of February to the 25th day of Jlpril which alterations, the plea averred, were made after said writ had been signed by said justice, and without his knowledge and authority, and that no security for prosecution was given after said alterations.
the plain-⅛⅛&⅜⅜? return,after gignetj an(i issued, and ty to prose-" £ut® ha®gn wd^remS ⅞ security ⅛ necessary,
abatement, 0,1 tlie, _ ground oi such .altera-in itself, and must shew, by a distinct and precise averment of facts, that security was necessary, at the time of granting the writ, and that the alteration v’as made under such circumstances as to avoid the security given,
Hartford,
June, 1818.
The plaintiffs replied, that they did, by the recognizance of Minor Hotchkiss, Esq. a substantial inhabitant of this state, for the sum of 100 dollars, duly entered into before said justice, at the time when said writ was granted, give sufficient security to prosecute their action, as the law directs j and traversed the allegation in the first part of the plea, that the plaintiffs did not, when said writ was granted* give any security to prosecute, &c. To the second part of the plea the plaintiffs demurred.
The court found the issue in fact for the plaintiffs, and decided that the second ground of abatement was insufficient. Final judgment being rendered for the plaintiffs, the defendant brought the present writ of error.
C. Whittelsey, for the plaintiff in error,
contended, 1. That the second part of the plea in abatement was sufficient. From the writ, which is part of the record, it appears, that the plaintiffs, at the time it issued, were not inhabitants of this state. Security for prosecution, then, became indispensable. Admitting such security to have been duly given, in the first instance, the material alterations in the writ and declaration, subsequently made, avoided it, and no inhabitant of this state was liable for costs, when the process was served.
2. That the finding of the court on the first part of the plea, was inconsistent with the facts admitted in the second part, and was, therefore, bad. Bac. Mr. tit. Verdict. (T) (W). It has become a maxim in the law, that what the parties have agreed in pleading, shall be admitted, though the jury find otherwise. Bac. Mr. tit. Pleas and Pleadings.
Staples, for the defendants in error,
insisted, 1. That the plea in abatement was insufficient, because it did not aver, that the plaintiffs in the action were not inhabitants of this state, at the time the writ was granted. Dwight v. Wolcott, S Day 406. Jlinsworth v. Dyer ‡ al. 2 Root 202. It does not help the plea, that the plaintiffs describe themselves as of the city of JVew-York; because, in the first place, you cannot* in any case, help out a plea in abatement in this way, as it must be good of itself, and stand by its own strength; and in the next place, the plaintiffs, though of the city of JYew~Fork when the writ was drawn, might have been inhabitants of this state, when it was issued and served. Pleas in abatement are to be strictly construed, and must be certain to every intent. 1 Chitt. Plead. 445. Roberts v. Moon, 5 Term Rep. 487, 8. Wadsworth v. Woodford, l Day 28.
2. That the facts stated in the second exception being insufficient as a ground of abatement, they arc of no avail as opposed (admitting them to be so) to the finding of the court on the first. On the whole record, there is still no ground of abatement. But even this topic of argument fails ; for there is, in truth, no inconsistency between the finding and the allegations demurred to.
See Stat. Conn. tit. 6. c. 1. «, 1.

Opinion:
Swept, Oh. J.
Every plea in abatement must be complete in itself, and must contain all the averments essential to shew, that the writ ought to abate# In all cases of attachment, or where the plaintiff lives out of the state, so that bonds are required by law, a material alteration, after the writ has been signed and issued, and while the bond continues necessary, will destroy the writ; for it will cease to be the writ on which the bond was taken ; and to permit such an alteration might subject the person giving the bond to responsibilities that he did not contemplate. An alteration in the date, or the court to which it is returnable, is material. But in this plea there is no allegation, that the plaintiffs were not inhabitants of this state ; so that it does not appear from the plea, that a bond for prosecution is necessary. The process, therefore, as appears from the plea, stands on the footing of a summons, in favour of an inhabitant of this state ; and in such cases it has been the immemorial usage for magistrates to sign writs in blank, and for the parties to fill them up in any proper manner. Of course, the alteration in the writ, alleged to have been made, could not affect its validity.
I am of opinion, that there is nothing erroneous in the judgment complained of.
Trumbuu,, EdmoNd, Smith, Brais arh and Peters, Js. were oí the same opinion.