Case Name: Lanier, Shelton and Cocke v. Cocke, Crawford and Company
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1820-03-30
Citations: 6 Munf. 580
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lanier, Shelton and Cocke v. Cocke, Crawford and Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 865–865

Head Matter:
Lanier, Shelton and Cocke v. Cocke, Crawford and Company.
Decided, March 30th, 1820.
I. Demurrer — Time of Filins —After Cause Remanded for New Trial.' — After the Court of Appeals have passed upon a case, and remanded the cause for a new trial upon the general issue, a demurrer to the declaration, or a plea in abatement upon the ground that the Christian names of the respective parties are not mentioned therein, ought not to be received.
See Murdock and others v. Herndon’s executors, 1 H. & M. 200; Scott & Co. v. Dunlop, Pollock & Co. 2 Munf. 349; and Totty’s executors v. Donald & Co. 4 Munf. 430.
After the decision by the Court of Appeals, in the case of Shelton v. Cocke, Crawford & Co., reported in 3 Munf. 191 — 197, the cause being remanded to the Superior Court of law, William Shelton, the defendant upon whom the Writ had been served, tendered to that Court a demurrer to the declaration, 1st, because the Christian and*sur-
names of the plaintiff’s and defendants were not mentioned therein ; which demurrer the Court would not permit to be filed ; to which opinion the said defendant excepted. He also tendered a plea in abatement, setting forth the same defect in the declaration ; and another plea alledging that the mercantile firm of Cocke, Crawford & Co., included, among other persons, a certain Thomas W. Cocke, who was also a partner of the firm of Lanier, Shelton and Cocke. The Court refusing to receive the said pleas also, another blit of exceptions was filed.
The other points presented by the transcript of the record are unimportant. A new trial being had upon the issue formerly joined, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, and judgment rendered accordingly ; from which the defendants appealed.
For the proposition laid down in the headnotc the principal case is cited in Barrett v. M’Allister, S5 W. Va. 106, 12 S. E. Rep. 1111. See monographic note on “Demurrers” appended toCom. v. Jackson, 2 Va. Cas. 601.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The Court, not now do cidiug whether this suit was properly brought without inserting the Christian names of the respective parties, is of opinion that there is no other error in the proceedings ; and that this objection, if it be one, comes too late, as this Court has already passed upon the case without noticing the objection aforesaid.
Judgment affirmed.