QUALITIES OF PLEAS IN ABATEMENT. The defendant may plead in abatement to part, and demur or plead in bar to the residue, of the declaration ; 2 Saund. 210. The general rule is that whatever proves the writ false at the time of suing it out shall abate the writ entirely ; 1 Saund. 286 (n. 7).
As this plea delays the ascertainment of the merits of the action, it is not favored by the courts ; the greatest accuracy and pre cision are therefore required ; and it cannot be amended ; 2 Saund. 298; Co. Litt. 392; 13 M. & W. 474; Jenkins v. Pepoon, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 312; 8 Bingh. 416 ; Getchell v. Boyd, 44 Me. 482; Mandel v. Peet, 18 Ark. 236; Anonymous, 1 Hemp. 215, Fed. Cas. No. 18,224 ; Roberts v. Heim, 27 Ala. 678. It must contain a direct, full, and positive averment of all the material facts; Morse v. Nash, 30 Vt. 76; Lary v. Evans, 35 N. H. 172 ; Ellis v. Ellis, 4 R. I. 110; Tweed v. Lib bey, 37 Me. 49 ; Dinsmore v. Pendexter, 28 N. H. 18; Townsend v. Jeffries' Adm'r, 24 Ala. 329; Wales v. Jones, 1 Mich. 254. It must give enough so as to enable the plain tiff by amendment completely to supply the defect or avoid the mistake on which the plea is founded ; 4 Term 224; 1 Saund. 274 (n. 4); Wadsworth v. Woodford, 1 Day (Conn.) 28; Rea v. Hayden, 3 Mass. 24 ; Bur row v. Sellers' Ex'rs, 2 N. C. 501; 2 Ld. Raym. 1178; 1 East 634.
It must not be double or repugnant ; 3 M. & W. 607. It must have an apt and proper, beginning and conclusion; 3 Term 186 ; Jen kins v. Pepoon, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 312; Schooninakers' Ex'rs v. Elmendorf, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 49 ; 2 Saund. 209. The whole matter of complaint must be covered by the plea; 2 B. & P. 420. It cannot be pleaded after making full defence ; 1 Chit. Pl. 441 (6th Lond. ed.).
A plea in abatement and a plea or answer in bar cannot be pleaded together; Southern Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Ins. Co., 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 88; Huntington Mfg. Co. v. Schofield, 28 Ind. App. 95, 62 N. E. 106; Trentman v. Fletcher, 100 Ind. 105; Carmien v. Cornell, 148 Ind. 83, 47 N. E. 216 (in Indiana there is a statute forbidding it; Field v. Malone, 102 Ind. 251, 1 N. E. 507) ; contra, Fisher v. Fra prie, 125 Mass. 472; O'Loughlin v. Bird, 128 Mass. 600 ; Parks v. Smith, 155 Mass. 26, 28 N. E. 1044; (where expressions otherwise in Pratt v. Sanger, 4•Gray [Mass.] 84 and Mor ton v. Sweetser, 12 Allen [Mass.] 134, are characterized as obiter) ; Hurlburt v. Palm er, 39 Neb. 158, 57 N. W. 1019; Templin v. Kimsey, 74 Neb. 614, 105 N. W. 89 (citing many intermediate cases and establishing the rule that a plea to the merits may be filed with one to the jurisdiction, when the lat ter sets up an objection dehors the record); and see Reynolds v. Cook, 83 Va. 817, 3 S. E. 710, 5 Am. St. Rep. 317. See also Duke v. Duke, 70 N. J. Eq. 135, 62 Atl. 466; and a Plea to the merits filed simultaneously with a plea in abatement waives the latter ; Put nam Lumber Co. v. Ellis-Young Co., 50 Fla. 251, 39 South. 193; City of Covington v. Lim erick, 40 S. W. 254, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 330 ; Las sas v. McCarty, 47 Or. 474, 84 Pac. 76; Mau
pin v. Ins. Co., 53 W. Va. 557, 45 S. E. 1003; Crowns v. Land Co., 99 Wis. 103, 74 N. W. 546.
In some states this rule is changed by stat ute; Moffitt v. Chronicle Co., 107 Ia. 407, 78 N. W. 45; Little Rock Trust Co. v. R. Co., 195 Mo. 669, 93 S. W. 944; Thach v. Mut. Acc. Ass'n, 114 Tenn. 271, 87 S. W. 255; Pyron & Davidson v. Graef, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 405, 72 S. W. 101; or rule of court; Na tional Fraternity v. Circuit Judge, 127 Mich. 186, 86 N. W. 540.
But this rule was held not to apply to a special plea denying partnership of the plain tiffs, filed under a statute requiring denial of the character in which the plaintiff sues in order to control it ; Robinson v. Parker, 11 App. D. 0. 132.
As to the form of pleas in abatement, see Harvey v. Hall, 22 Vt. 211; 1 Chit. Pl. (6th Lond. ed.) 454; Com. Dig. Abt. I, 19; 2 Saund. 1 (n. 2).
As to the time of pleading matter in abate ment, it must be pleaded before any plea to the merits, both in civil and criminal cases, except in cases where it arises or comes to the knowledge of the party subsequently ; Turns v. Com., 6 Mete. (Mass.) 224; Univer sity of Vermont v. Joslyn, 21 Vt. 52; Inhab itants of Plantation NQ. 9 v. Bean, 40 Me. 218; Butts v. Grayson, 14 Ark. 445; Hart v. Turk, 15 Ala. 675; Hatry v. Shuman, 13 Mo. 547; Ricker v. Scofield, 28 Ill. App. 32; and the right is waived by a subsequent plea to the merits ; Sheppard v. Graves, 14 How. (U. S.) 505, 14 L. Ed. 518; Hart v. Turk, 15 Ala. 675; Smith v. State, 19 Conn. 493 ; Saum v. Bd. of Com's, 1 G. Greene (Ia.) 165; Chapman v. Davis, 4 Gill (Md.) 166; Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 656, 20 L. Ed. 29.
See PLEA PUIS DABREIN CONTINUANCE.
Demurrer to complaint for insufficiency of facts, waives all matter in abatement; Marx v. Croisan, 17 Or. 393, 21 Pac. 310.
Of the Affidavit of Truth. Every dilatory plea must be proven to be true, either by affidavit, by matter apparent upon the rec ord, or probable matter shown to the court to induce them to believe it; 3 B. & P. 397; Holden v. Scanlin, 30 Vt. 177; White v. Whit man,, 1 Curt. 494, Fed. Cas. No. 17,561; Huinphrey v. Whitten, 17 Ala. 30 ; Knowl ton v. Culver, 1 Chand. (Wis.) 16; Bank of Tennessee v. Jones, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 391; Saum v. Bd. of Com's, 1 G. Greene (Ia.) 165. It is not necessary that the affidavit should be made by the party himself; his attorney, or even a third person, will do ; 1 Saund. PL & Ey. 3 (5th Am. ed.). The plaintiff may waive an affidavit; 5 Dowl. & L. 737; Rich mond v. Tallmadge, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 307. The affidavit must, be coextensive with the plea ; 3 Nev. & M. 260, and leave nothing to be collected by inference ; Say. 293. It should state that the plea is true in sub stance and fact, and not merely that the plea is a true plea; 3 Stra. 705; Day v. Ham burgh, 1 Browne (Pa.) 77; Rapp v. Elliot, 2 Dall. (Pa.) 184, 1 L. Ed. 341.
Plea in abatement on account of non-join der of joint promisors need not be verified by oath, National Niantic Bank v. Express Co., 16 R. I. 343, 15 Att 763.