Case Name: Smart v. M'Donell
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1807-11
Citations: 2 Brev. 224
Docket Number: 
Parties: Smart v. M’Donell.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
NOV. 1807.
Smart v. M’Donell.
A plea in abatement was adjudged to be naught for duplicity on special demurrer, and defendant was ordered to answer over.
Action for words, in Richland district, before Bay, J. Defendant pleaded a misnomer of the defendant, and also a defect in the copy of the writ, in the notice indorsed thereon, no time being mentioned when the defendant was to appear to answer. The plaintiff demurred for duplicity; and Bay, J., determined in his favor, and ordered the defendant to answer over.
Hooker, for the defendant,
moved in this court to reverse the judgment of the District Court, and for leave to enter up judgment for the defendant, and contended that duplicity in a plea in abatement is not a good objection. Cited Garth. 8, 1 Com. Dig. 83.
Stark, contra.
Insisted that a plea in abatement being a dilatory plea, ought to be dealt with strictly; and that such pleas are never favored. 3 D. and E. 185. 5 D. and E. 487. 1 Com. Dig. 83. 5 D. and E. 376. The least inaccuracy will be- fatal, on special demurrer; and duplicity is as much a fault in pleas in abatement, as in other pleas. In general it is exceptionable, being calcu- íated to delay the cause, and perplex the parties. Co. Litt. 304. Garth. 9.
Note. The demurrer ought to shew in what the duplicity consists; for the stat. 27 Eliz. c. 5, obliges the party to lay his finger on the very point. 1 WfiSl 819. See Hob. 232.

Opinion:
Bsevard, J.,
delivered the opinion of all the judges, except Tbezevant, J., absent, sick. The science of pleading has been re-1 w commended by the greatest sages of the law. It is eulogized by Lit-tleton, and Lord Coke, as the most honorable and profitable thing in the law. Other eminent judges in England, have made honor, able mention of it, and have said, that, when properly understood, it is the soundest and closest logic ; and that its rules are founded in good sense, and are calculated to promote the ends of justice. Its principal objects are certainty, and despatch, to which nothing is more conducive than precision and brevity. By the general rules of pleading, uncertainty, contradiction, repugnancy, insensibility, and duplicity, are exceptionable, and may be taken advantage'of by demurrer. The end of pleading is, to reduce all matters in debate between the parties, to a certain and single point. Duplicity in pleas would tend to defeat this end; by producing endless altercation and perplexity. It has been contended that pleas in abatement, are an exception from the general rule; but the authorities which have been quoted to support this distinction, do not maintain it. It is a general principle that pleas in abatement, are not to be favored, because they are generally meant to delay ; and frequently this is the sole purpose of them. And all the modern cases which bear upon the subject; show that the courts do hold a very strict hand over them,- and will set them aside on demurrer for the least defect or inaccuracy. In the present case the plea is double, inasmuch as it alleges in abatement two causes of abatement, of different and distinct natures; either of which would be sufficient to quash the writ; and which admit of different and distinct answers. The principles and doctrine of the law are both opposed to the plea; and, therefore, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed, that the defendant answer ovei.