Moore v. Morton

4 Ky. 234, 1 Bibb 234, 1808 Ky. LEXIS 198
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedNovember 22, 1808
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 4 Ky. 234 (Moore v. Morton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moore v. Morton, 4 Ky. 234, 1 Bibb 234, 1808 Ky. LEXIS 198 (Ky. Ct. App. 1808).

Opinion

OPINION of the Court, by

Judge Trimble.

— It will only be necessary to consider the 3d assignment of error, which is that “ the judgment upon,, sustaining the demurrer to the plea to the writ, ought to have been (quod respondeat ouster) that the defendant answer over, &c. instead of a judgment in chief.”

Barnett Moore, who was defendant in the court below, and upon whom a capias ad respondendum requiring bail, had been executed in the county of Bracken, ancj bail taken of him for his appearance in Bracken circuit court ; after craving oyer ot the writ, pleaded a plea, in nature of a plea in abatement, which he con-cjucjes by demanding “ judgment of the writ, and that the same may be quashed.” To this plea the plaintiff demurred specially, which was joined by the defendant. The court upon argument, adjudged the plea ill and sustained the demurrer; and thereupon entered up judgment in chief against the defendant, for the debt. The plea was bad on special demurrer, and the court did right in overruling it ; but we are of opinion the court erred in the judgment given. When the defendant pleads a plea in abatement, if the plaintiff takes issue to the country thereupon, and it is found for him, he shall have judgment in chief; because the defendant’s plea is thereby falsified ; but if the plaintiff demurs and the law is adjudged for him upon the demurrer, it is well settled, that the judgment shall be, that the defendant answer over; or in other words, that the defendant shall [235]*235plead to the merits ; which if he will not do, judgment may be entered against him for nil dicit.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Thomas v. Sweet
63 S.W. 787 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1901)
Mayfield v. Barnard
43 Miss. 270 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1870)
Straus v. Weil
45 Tenn. 120 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1867)
Myers & Waterson v. Hunter Erwin & Co.
20 Ohio St. 381 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1851)
Alling v. Shelton
16 Conn. 436 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1844)
Pomeroy v. Manin
19 F. Cas. 959 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, 1842)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Ky. 234, 1 Bibb 234, 1808 Ky. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-morton-kyctapp-1808.