Mr. Justice WAYNE
delivered the opinion of'the court..
The declaration in this case contains three counts. It is alleged in the first and third, that the defendant, with force and arms, in. the county of Washington, seized, took, detained, and destroyed the goods and chattels belonging to the plaintiff, and also the shantee or storehouse in which the goods were found,' of the value of
$2000.
The only difference in the counts is in the specification of the goods destroyed. In the second count, the defendant is charged with having, with force and arms, in the county of Washington, broke and entered a certain, other .sháiitee or temporary storehouse of the plaintiff, situate and being in the county of Washington. •
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and issue was joined on that plea.
The plaintiff, on the trial, in support of his cáse, offered evidence to prove, that the defendant, with a large force of armed men came to the. storehouse or shantee of the plaintiff, in Allegany county, Maryland, entered into the same, and took and carried away the goods and chattels stated' in the declaration, &d, and other evidence was offered to show.the value of the goods. The court refused to permit the evidence to be given to the jury. Upon an exception to this ruling, the case is now before this court.
Tt was first urged in argument, that as the original writ in the case declared that the defendant} with force and arms, &c., broke into the storehouse of the plaintiff, &c., it was such a declaration
of
the nature of-the. complaint, which the defendant was required to answer, that it must be considered as the gist of each count, and that there was such a variance between the counts and the writ that it would abate the writ. Admit that this fault exists, and that the nature of the plaintiff’s demand must be mentioned in. the writ, that the defendant may know before he appears in court the kind of complaint he is required to answer, and that the declaration afterwards filed, or the writ, or both,.shall be deficient in some legal requisite, or shall contain irregularity, informality, or mistake, which would abate the writ, the defendant is not here in a situation to avail himself of the fault. He has pleaded not guilty. This plea refers to the counts and not to the writ. 'It puts the plaintiff to prove the material allegations in his declaration, and the defendant assumes by it to contest them.
To allow, then, a defendant, after the general issue has been pleaded, to avail himself of any defect or mistake in the writ, or variance or repugnancy between the count and the writ, would be, not to. try the cause at issue, but would have the effect to take it from the jury and to place it before the court, upon a point of pleading which has not been pleaded, and which is unconnected with the merits of the cause. Such mistakes, either in the writ, or in a variance between the count and the writ, must be taken advantage of by a plea in abatement. And if the mistake or fault is apparent on the face of the declaration, such as a misstatement of the cause of action, it will be a good cause of demurrer. 3 Black. Com. 301; Com. Dig. Abatement, G, I, 8; Willes, 410; 1 Show. 91; 1 Salk. 212; Duvall and Craig, 2 Wheat. 45, 55. The case, then, is not in a condition- to enable the defendant to avail himself of the objection. But is there any such variance in this case. We think not. The writ mentions a trespass with force and arms upon the storehouse of the plaintiff, and the seizure and destruction of goods. This puts the defendant in possession of the complaint against him, or what he will be required to answer before he appears in court. It is but the commencement of the suit, and is sufficient, if it advises the defendant of the cause of action, without those particulars which •must be set out in the declaration, which, when filed, gives the defendant an opportunity to use any of those defences or pleas to which he may be entitled by the rules of pleading.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mr. Justice WAYNE
delivered the opinion of'the court..
The declaration in this case contains three counts. It is alleged in the first and third, that the defendant, with force and arms, in. the county of Washington, seized, took, detained, and destroyed the goods and chattels belonging to the plaintiff, and also the shantee or storehouse in which the goods were found,' of the value of
$2000.
The only difference in the counts is in the specification of the goods destroyed. In the second count, the defendant is charged with having, with force and arms, in the county of Washington, broke and entered a certain, other .sháiitee or temporary storehouse of the plaintiff, situate and being in the county of Washington. •
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and issue was joined on that plea.
The plaintiff, on the trial, in support of his cáse, offered evidence to prove, that the defendant, with a large force of armed men came to the. storehouse or shantee of the plaintiff, in Allegany county, Maryland, entered into the same, and took and carried away the goods and chattels stated' in the declaration, &d, and other evidence was offered to show.the value of the goods. The court refused to permit the evidence to be given to the jury. Upon an exception to this ruling, the case is now before this court.
Tt was first urged in argument, that as the original writ in the case declared that the defendant} with force and arms, &c., broke into the storehouse of the plaintiff, &c., it was such a declaration
of
the nature of-the. complaint, which the defendant was required to answer, that it must be considered as the gist of each count, and that there was such a variance between the counts and the writ that it would abate the writ. Admit that this fault exists, and that the nature of the plaintiff’s demand must be mentioned in. the writ, that the defendant may know before he appears in court the kind of complaint he is required to answer, and that the declaration afterwards filed, or the writ, or both,.shall be deficient in some legal requisite, or shall contain irregularity, informality, or mistake, which would abate the writ, the defendant is not here in a situation to avail himself of the fault. He has pleaded not guilty. This plea refers to the counts and not to the writ. 'It puts the plaintiff to prove the material allegations in his declaration, and the defendant assumes by it to contest them.
To allow, then, a defendant, after the general issue has been pleaded, to avail himself of any defect or mistake in the writ, or variance or repugnancy between the count and the writ, would be, not to. try the cause at issue, but would have the effect to take it from the jury and to place it before the court, upon a point of pleading which has not been pleaded, and which is unconnected with the merits of the cause. Such mistakes, either in the writ, or in a variance between the count and the writ, must be taken advantage of by a plea in abatement. And if the mistake or fault is apparent on the face of the declaration, such as a misstatement of the cause of action, it will be a good cause of demurrer. 3 Black. Com. 301; Com. Dig. Abatement, G, I, 8; Willes, 410; 1 Show. 91; 1 Salk. 212; Duvall and Craig, 2 Wheat. 45, 55. The case, then, is not in a condition- to enable the defendant to avail himself of the objection. But is there any such variance in this case. We think not. The writ mentions a trespass with force and arms upon the storehouse of the plaintiff, and the seizure and destruction of goods. This puts the defendant in possession of the complaint against him, or what he will be required to answer before he appears in court. It is but the commencement of the suit, and is sufficient, if it advises the defendant of the cause of action, without those particulars which •must be set out in the declaration, which, when filed, gives the defendant an opportunity to use any of those defences or pleas to which he may be entitled by the rules of pleading.
It was also urged that the venue laid in each of the counts was so imperfectthat the evidence offered could not be received to support either of them. That it could not be received under the second count,-for that was
qua?’e clausum freg-it
in the county of Washington, §md the evidence proved a local trespass, within another jurisdiction or sovereignty; and that it could not be received under the first and third counts; because, though they might be counts, for transitory causes of action, it was necessary to lay a venue where the trespass was committed with a
scilicet,
to let in the evidence at any other place of trial. The evidence offered as to the local count was certainly not- competent; but that is because the venue is local, and cannot be changed into any other county than where the trespass to the really was done, and never c.an be carried-out of the sovereignty in which the
land is. But it .is an established rule, that in transitory actions a venue is only necessary to be laid to give a place for trial. Such a venue is indispensable, for without it would not appear in what county the trial was to take place, nor could a jury be summoned to try the, issue. Com. Dig. Pleader, C, 20; 1 Cowp. 176, 177; 5 Term Rep. 620; 2 Lev. 227; Bacon’s Ab. Venue, C; 3 Term Rep. 387. The. venue for trial is a legal fiction, devised for the furtherance of justice, and cannot be traversed. So that, if A becomes indebted to B, or commits a tort upon his person or upon his personal property in Paris, an action in either case may be maintained .against A in England, if he is there found, upon a declaration alleging a cause of action to have occurred in an English county, in which the action'is laid, without taking notice of the foreign place. 1 Cowp. 177 — 179. Lord Mansfield said: But as to transitory actions, there is not a colour of doubt but that any action which is transitory may be laid'in any county in England, though the matter arises beyond the seas. Mostyn
v.
Fabrigas, 1 Cowp. 161. In Doulson
v.
Matthews and another, 4 D. and East, 503, (a case in all its particulars like this,) which was an action for entering the plaintiff’s house in Canada and expelling him, and in which there was a count for taking away his goods, Lord Kenyon nonsuited the plaintiff because the first count was local, and because he had not supported his second count by proof. Buller, Justice, also said: It is now too late for us to inquire whether it was wise and politic to make a distinction between transitory and local actions: it. is sufficient for the courts, that the law has settled the distinction, and that an action
quare clausum fregit
is local. We may try actions here, which are in their nature transitory, arising out of a transaction abroad; but not such as are in their nature, local. In Rafael
v.
Verelst, 2 W. Black. 1055, which was a trespass committed in the dominions of'a foreign prince, De Grey, Chief Justice, said: Crimes are, in their nature local, and the jurisdiction of crimes is local. And so as to.the rights of real property, the subject being fixed and im-. movable. But personal injuries are of a transitory nature, and
sequunlur forum rei.
And though in all declarations of trespass it is laid
contra pacem regís,
yet that is only matter of form and not traversable. The same doctrine in respect to local and transitory actions has been, repeatedly affirmed in the courts
of the states of this Union. 1 Stra. 646;
2
W. Black. 1070; 1 Cowp. 176; 4 Term Rep. 503 — 507; Cowp. 587; 6 East, 598, 599; Com. Dig. Action, 177; 1 Cowp. 161, 177, 178, 184, 344;
2
H. Black. 145, 161; Co. Litt. a, n. 1; 3 Term Rep. 616; 7 Term Rep. 243; 1 Saund. n. 2; Glen
v.
Hodges, 9 Johns. 67; Gardner
v.
Thomas, 14 Johns. 134. It then appears from our books, that the courts in. England have been open in cases of trespass other' than trespass upon real property, to foreigners as well as to subjects, and to foreigners, against foreigners when found in England,.for trespasses committed within the realm and out of the realm, or within or without, the king’s foreign dominions. And it also appears from the authorities which have, beén cited, that in a transitory action of trespass, it is only necessary to lay a venue for a place of trial, and that such venue is good without stating where the trespass was in fact committed, with a
-scilicet
of the county in which the action is brought.
The courts in the District of Columbia have a like jurisdiction in trespass upon personal property with the courts in England and in the states of this "Union, and in the absence of statutory provisions, in the trial of them must apply, the same common law principles which regulate the mode of bringing such actions, the pleadings, and the- proof. It is our opinion, that the exception taken by the plaintiff to the ruling of the court, in respect to the evidence excluded, must be sustained, arid we direct thé-cause to be remanded for further proceedings.
ordeJr.
This cause\came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circhit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and .the samé is hereby reversed, with costs, and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court, with- directions to award a
venire facias de novo.