Upon the trial of an issue of fact, as the character of the issue was determined by the pleadings, it necessarily followed that the rel evancy of all evidence offered at the trial was also primarily determined by the pleadings. l'pon the entry of judgment all the pleadings in the ease, together with the judgment (-oust itut ing the judgment roll, were tiled with the clerk of the court. thus constituting a complete per nutrient record of the ease.
Owing to the highly technical aml formal na ture of the common-law system, the practice grew up of deciding the rights of litigants upon purely formal grounds, and judgment was frequently taken against a party upon demurrer because he had failed to state a perfectly valid claim or defense in the proper form. This was corrected to some extent by the statute of 27 Enz., e. 5, see. 1, which provided that no advantage should be taken of defects of form, except by a special demurrer which should state specifically the formal defect objected to. The statute 4 Anne, e. 16, see. 1, was enacted for more effec tively accomplishing this result. and 15 and 16 Viet., e. 76, see. 50-52, abolished the special demurrer and required all defects of form to be taken advantage of by motion before trial. This is generally the modern ()methev. The statute of Anne referred to allowed the defendant to plead several pleas to the same declaration, thus breaking down to some extent the principle of singleness of issue. Throng]) laxity of prat. Hee also the defendant was allowed in his plea to make use of a general denial. known as the general issue, the effect of which in most actions was ultimately not only to deny all the essential allegations of the declaration, but to allow the defendant at the trial to prove many matters of affirmative defense. An attempt was made by statute, 4 Wm. 1V., e. 42, to avoid the confusion
and the frequently illogical results of this com plicated system by authorizing the judges of the common-law courts to adopt certain rules modify ing the common law of pleading as it then ex isted. These rules, known as the Hilary rules, were promulgated in 1634 and had for their principal object the narrowing of the general issue so as to make it conform more closely to a II vical denial of the allegations in the com plaint. These rules, however. did not succeed in accomplishing the desired result, and seem only to have added to the confusion into which the subject had fallen. The law was substantially revised by 15 and 16 Viet.. e. 76, and modern legislation has been enacted in all of the United States in which the common-law system has been retained.
Following are the more essential changes: 1%latters of form are required to be taken ad vantage of by motion before trial, otherwise they are deemed to have been waived. Single ness of issue is not required. the defendant being allowed to use the general denial and to plead several matters by way of con fession and avoidance. In many jurisdictions the number of successive pleadings is limited. Deeisions upon demurrers are not necessarily final, the defendant being usually allowed to plead to the merits in ease his demurrer is over Great freedom of amendment is allowed. a party being allowed to correct a defective plead ing by amendment on application to the court, even at the trial of the action, if the rights of his opponent will not be prejudiced by the amendment. There are also many minor changes. the general object being to make the system more simple and just in its application, and to avoid the determination of rights upon purely formal grounds.