Engle v. Nelson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Engle v. Nelson

1 Pen. & W. 442

DecidedJune 15, 1830

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Pen. & W. 442 (Engle v. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Engle v. Nelson, 1 Pen. & W. 442 (Pa. 1830).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

That the pendency of the domestic attachment in Huntingdon county, was clothed in the drapery of a special plea in bar,- can impose on the plaintiff no additional obligation to answer it, if it were essentially pleadable only in abatement 5 and it is necessarily so, where it goes,- not to the plaintiff’s title, but to the particular action. It is different however as regards a popular action, which vests the property of the thing in action, in the party who has first sued for it: there the pendency of a prior action tvhich extinguishes the title of every one else, necessarily bars the right, and this distinction is not only founded in technical reason, but recognized by the best elementary writers. 1 Chitty on Plead. 443. As a plea in abatement, then, this branch of the defence was not only grossly defective in form, but produced at a stage of the pleadings when it was decisively inadmissible; and the court was perfectly accurate in treating it as a nullity.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

That the pendency of the domestic attachment in Huntingdon county, was clothed in the drapery of a special plea in bar,- can impose on the plaintiff no additional obligation to answer it, if it were essentially pleadable only in abatement 5 and it is necessarily so, where it goes,- not to the plaintiff’s title, but to the particular action. It is different however as regards a popular action, which vests the property of the thing in action, in the party who has first sued for it: there the pendency of a prior action tvhich extinguishes the title of every one else, necessarily bars the right, and this distinction is not only founded in technical reason, but recognized by the best elementary writers. 1 Chitty on Plead. 443. As a plea in abatement, then, this branch of the defence was not only grossly defective in form, but produced at a stage of the pleadings when it was decisively inadmissible; and the court was perfectly accurate in treating it as a nullity.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Pen. & W. 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/engle-v-nelson-pa-1830.