Robinson v. Ingram

Supreme Court of Delaware

Robinson v. Ingram

1 Del. Cas. 242

DecidedOctober 15, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. Cas. 242 (Robinson v. Ingram) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. Ingram, 1 Del. Cas. 242 (Del. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

In the case now before the Court, everything represented in the first and second pleas as grounds for abatement of the writ appear on the face of the writ of scire facias, at least as to the first plea, for the defendants are sued as administrators.

N. B. Affidavit cannot be made after objection, 2 Dali. 184.

Per Curiam. Johns, C. J.

The third plea was properly abandoned. With regard to the first and second pleas, we are of opinion that they contain matters of fact that are not disclosed and,, as not verified by affidavit, must be struck out.

The Chief Justice observed that he thought those same objections might be made on demurrer.¹

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

In the case now before the Court, everything represented in the first and second pleas as grounds for abatement of the writ appear on the face of the writ of scire facias, at least as to the first plea, for the defendants are sued as administrators.

N. B. Affidavit cannot be made after objection, 2 Dali. 184.

Per Curiam. Johns, C. J.

The third plea was properly abandoned. With regard to the first and second pleas, we are of opinion that they contain matters of fact that are not disclosed and,, as not verified by affidavit, must be struck out.

The Chief Justice observed that he thought those same objections might be made on demurrer.¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Del. Cas. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-ingram-del-1799.