Court Opinion

ID: 9416785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:55:21.850999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:32.350792
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD,
with whom concurred SWAYNE and DAYIS, JJ., dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case upon two grounds, which I will proceed to state without entering at all into the argument to support the respective propositions—
1. Because I think that the alleged disability to sue s'.; ould have been pleaded in abatement and not in bar. Undoubtedly a different rule of pleading prevailed at common law, but there are three reported decisions of this court in which it is held that such a plea in a ease like the present must be in abatement, and in view of our complicated system of jurisprudence I am not inclined to overrule those cases. They have been regarded as authoi’ities for many years, and I am of the opinion that the rule which they establish is the better one as a rule of pleading in the Federal courts than the rule which prevailed at common law.*
2. I am also of the opinion that the decree in the former suit is conclusive as to the rights of the parties, and that it constitutes a complete answer to the defence in the present suit.†

 Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheaton, 642; Kane v. Paul, 14 Peters, 83; Ventress v. Smith, 10 Id. 161.

 Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 499.