Inhabitants of Bordentown v. Wallace
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On demurrer to defendants’ pleas. This action is brought on a joint and several bond given by the defendants to the plaintiff in the penal sum of $2500, with the condition that if the defendants “ shall pay unto the said the Inhabitants of the township of Bordentown, or to its successors and assigns, the sum of $2.50 each and every week, to-the overseer of the poor for the time being of the said township of Bordentown, to be applied to and for the support of a certain female…
Read the full summary
On demurrer to defendants’ pleas. This action is brought on a joint and several bond given by the defendants to the plaintiff in the penal sum of $2500, with the condition that if the defendants “ shall pay unto the said the Inhabitants of the township of Bordentown, or to its successors and assigns, the sum of $2.50 each and every week, to-the overseer of the poor for the time being of the said township of Bordentown, to be applied to and for the support of a certain female bastard child, of whom William Wallace, one of the parties hereby bound, is the father, for and during such period of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Scudder, J.
The defence of the infancy of one of the defendants contained in the joint plea of all, is informal and bad. Infancy is a personal privilege of which no one can take advantage but himself. Voorhees v. Wait, 3 Green 343; Patterson v. Lippincott, 18 Vroom 457.
It is also a rule of pleading that personal defences, as coverture, infancy, &c., shall be pleaded separately; that only when the defence is in its nature joint, may several defendants join in the same plea, and that where a plea is bad in part it is bad in toto ; if therefore, two or…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thompson v. LockwoodNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- People v. MooresNew York Supreme Court · 1847
3Cited by1 opinion
- Grissom v. BeidlemanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912