Summary

Peter Vivian Daniel Hogan v. Ross (54 U.S. 173) — Opinion of the Court

If in our examination of the decision of the Circuit Court, it were deemed necessary to pass upon the legal effect of the pleas tendered by the defendants below, and overruled by the court, we could have no hesitation in pronouncing each of those pleas bad upon demurrer. It is a settled rule in pleading, that wherever a plea in its commencement professes to respond to the entire declaration or count, and is in substance and reality in answer to part only of such declaration or count, the plea is bad, and the defect may be availed of, upon demurrer.
Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel Hogan v. Ross (54 U.S. 173) — Opinion of the Court

Every plea must answer the whole declaration or count. If a plea, as in this case, begin with an answer to the whole declaration, but in truth the matter pleaded is only an answer to part, the whole plea is bad. In such case plaintiff may take judgment for the part unanswered as by nil dicit. 4 Rep. 62 a; 1 Chit. Rep. 132, note a; Id. 526, n.
It must be apparent on the whole pleadings that defendants had no defence to the action, and merely made defence for delay, and that plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the merits.
Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel Hogan v. Ross (54 U.S. 173) — Opinion of the Court

It was a manifest error to allow plaintiff to take judgment, even if the plea had not extended to the second count of the declaration final. 4 Phillips, Evidence, 169; 1 Saunders, Pleading and Evidence, 319.
The only remaining question is, what the judgment of the court shall be? There can be no question that the court will feel it to be their duty to reverse the judgment below. This being done, I insist that it will be the duty of the court to render upon the demurrer such judgment as the court below should have rendered in the case.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature