Roe v. Mayor
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Ejectments for lands in. the county of Philadelphia, with notices to appear at the last September term. On the 1st December 1794, the tenants appeared, entered their pleas of not guilty, and into the common rule. On the 8th April 1795, the following special plea in abatement was filed in the first suit, and verified by the oath of Hugh Henry, which was agreed should extend to both suits.
Read the full summary
Ejectments for lands in. the county of Philadelphia, with notices to appear at the last September term. On the 1st December 1794, the tenants appeared, entered their pleas of not guilty, and into the common rule. On the 8th April 1795, the following special plea in abatement was filed in the first suit, and verified by the oath of Hugh Henry, which was agreed should extend to both suits. “And the said Jacob Mayor and Hugh Henry, executors “of the testament and last will of Joseph Le Blane, deceased, “by Robert Henry Dunkin their attorney, pray judgment of ‘ ‘ the writ aforesaid, because that…
1Per curiam
There is nothing in the plea in abatement which the defendants could not take advantage of at the trial, on the general issue. If Anne was the wife of Adair and not of Kopez, the latter could not join with her in making the lease laid in the declaration, and consequently, the plaintiff must be non-suited for want of shewing a title in himself. Though the lease to the nominal plaintiff be a fiction, which is admitted by the common rule, yet it must be pursued with correctness and accuracy.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Den ex dem. Hoover v. FranklinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1820