Ross v. Cannon — 2 Del. Cas. 34

Majority

p. 34

ROSS v. CANNON.

Court of Common Pleas.

April, 1808.

Wells’ Notebook, 369.

p. 35

Cooper and Horsey for plaintiffs, and Bayard and Vandyke for defendants.

Defendant’s counsel offered the pleas of non est factum, payment, etc. Objected to by the plaintiff’s counsel that the pleas were repugnant. They quoted 1 Sell.Pr. 329.

The pleas are inconsistent and cannot be pleaded.

N. B. The motive for putting in these pleas was to take advantage of a variance between the bond as shown on oyer and the one declared on.

The defendant’s counsel then offered the plea of nil debet in modo et forma etc. This the Court rejected likewise.