Whipple v. Rogerson
This text of 78 Mass. 347 (Whipple v. Rogerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
To a plea in abatement that the plaintiff is a feme covert and that her husband should have been joined with her in the suit, it is a good answer that such fact was first alleged in an answer filed after the filing of an affidavit that the party had a substantial defence to the action, and intended to bring the same to trial. Cole v. Ackerman, 7 Gray, 38. Nor can the defendant avoid the effect of postponing filing his plea in abatement until after filing his affidavit of defence as above stated, upon the ground of the omission in the [348]*348affidavit of the words “ on the merits; ” the defendant acting upon the same as an affidavit entitling him to file an answer to the merits, and actually filing such answer. The case must be treated as one where the defendant had filed an affidavit authorizing a substantial defence on the merits; and the plea in abatement was properly rejected as filed too late.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
78 Mass. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whipple-v-rogerson-mass-1859.