Blanding v. Mansfield
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON EXCEPTIONS. Action of assumpsit upon an account annexed, which was as follows: The action was entered at the January term, 1881, and at the next [April] term, the twentieth day, the defendant filed a general demurrer to the plaintiffs’ declaration. A hearing was had on the same day and the demurrer was overruled and adjudged frivolous and intended for delay.
Read the full summary
ON EXCEPTIONS. Action of assumpsit upon an account annexed, which was as follows: The action was entered at the January term, 1881, and at the next [April] term, the twentieth day, the defendant filed a general demurrer to the plaintiffs’ declaration. A hearing was had on the same day and the demurrer was overruled and adjudged frivolous and intended for delay. To this ruling and adjudication the defendant excepted. cited: 62 Maine, 544; Lord v. Kennébunkport, 61 Maine, 462; JRumrill v. Adams, 57 Maine, 565. The demurrer shouldbe sustained. (1.) The declaration alleges that the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrows, J.
Bad grammar does not vitiate a declaration when the person and case can be rightly understood. If it did, in these heedless days legal process as a remedy in the collection of small debts would be of little worth. In a declaration, as in a statute, we think "words of the singular may include the plural number,” unless the connection is such as to make them likely to mislead the defendant as to some matter that is important to his defence. The word "plaintiff” which is here criticised by defendant’s counsel, plainly signifies the plaintiff party and may well include all who are specified by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dole v. WeeksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Milner v. CalvertCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858