Witmer v. Schlatter
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This was a motion by Kittera, for the plaintiffs, to'strike off a plea in abatement, filed by Charles Bird, Thomas Harp, and Robert Earp, three of the defendants, that “the said several promises and undertakings in the said declaration mentioned, (if any such were made,) were made jointly with one George Earp, who is still living, viz. at the county of Philadelphia, and not by the defendants in the above suit alone.”
Read the full summary
This was a motion by Kittera, for the plaintiffs, to'strike off a plea in abatement, filed by Charles Bird, Thomas Harp, and Robert Earp, three of the defendants, that “the said several promises and undertakings in the said declaration mentioned, (if any such were made,) were made jointly with one George Earp, who is still living, viz. at the county of Philadelphia, and not by the defendants in the above suit alone.” The suit was brought to July Term, 1824: the declaration filed on the 29th of June, 1825: rule to plead in six weeks, or judgment, on the 11th of July, 1825; and the plea in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion o( the court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
This is a plea in abatement, and the cause was, “that the promises, if even such promises as are laid in the declaration were made, were made with one George Earp, who is still living.” The plaintiffs moved to strike off this plea, because put in too late, and because there had been in a former action a plea in abatement, that all the proper parties were not sued, and the action abated. To this it has been answered by the defendants, that the defendants who now put in this plea, were not sued in the first action; and the plaintiffs reply to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Irvine v. Lumbermen's BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Witmer v. SchlatterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1830
- Lacroix v. Macquart, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1835
- Osborn v. RobbinsNew York Supreme Court · 1861