Northrop v. Flaig
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Harrison County. Hon. J. S. Hamm, Judge. It was proper for the defendant’s attorney to make affidavit to the plea of non est factum. Code 1871, § 687. The bill of discovery was the only means of obtaining evidence essential to the defence. On sustaining a demurrer to a replication, the judgment is final.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Harrison County. Hon. J. S. Hamm, Judge. It was proper for the defendant’s attorney to make affidavit to the plea of non est factum. Code 1871, § 687. The bill of discovery was the only means of obtaining evidence essential to the defence. On sustaining a demurrer to a replication, the judgment is final. Ross v. Sims, 27 Miss. 859 ; Memphis Railroad Co. v. Orr, 52 Miss. 541. The pleas to the original declaration were applicable to the amended one. Parisot v. Helm, 52 Miss. 617. argued orally and in writing. Code 1871, § 687, is inapplicable to the plea in this…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmers, J.
A plea of non est factum was stricken out upon motion, because verified by the affidavit of the attorney instead of by that of the defendant, who, in this case, was the administrator of the maker of the writings sued on. Code 1871, § 687, declares that “ in all cases where the oath or affirmation of the party is required, such oath or affirmation may be made by his agent or attorney, and shall be as effectual for all purposes as if made by the party.” This section immediately succeeds those relating to the plea of non est factum, and while broad enough to cover, and doubtless intended to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Parisot v. HelmMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Metcalf v. GroverMississippi Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Meyers v. AkinsCuyahoga Circuit Court · 1894
- Myers v. AkinsOhio Circuit Courts · 1894