| Volume 194, Page 432 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
432 32 H. 8, CAP. 30, JEOFAILS. without any Reversal or undoing of the same by Writ of Error, or of false Judgment, in like form as though no such Default or Negligence had never been had or committed. III. (2) This present Act, with the Proviso, to endure till the last Day of the next Parliament. I. This Act extended to all Writs of Mandamus, &c., by 9 Ann. c. 20, s. 7. 1 Roll. 86, 200, 803, 374. 2 Roll. 161, 168, 187, 368. Stiles, 307. 2 Cr. 568'. The several Inconveniences which have heretofore followed by Delays in Suits. Moor. 574, pi. 790. Moor. 623, pi. 862. Moor. 867, pl 1198. 1 Cr. 78. Jones, 140. After an Issue tried, there shall be Judg- ment given notwithstanding any Jeofail or Mispleading. 2 Saund. 318. 1 Salk. 177, 178. 1 Leon. 175, 238. 2 Leon. 195. 1 Bulstr. 25. 2 Bulstr. 66. 3 Bulstr. 180, 301. Godbolt, 107, pi. 127. Hob. 69. 5 Co. 43, 36, 37, 49. 11 Co. 7. Bro. Repleader, 40. Dyer, f. 284, 353, 367. Cro. EL 131, 133, 153, 227, 257, 308, 339, 535. III. Made perpetual by 2 & 3 Ed. 6, c- 32. 18 El. c. 14. 21 Jac. 1, c. 13. Defect* cured by verdict.—If there be in any pleading any defect, or omission, or ambiguity, which would have been fatal on demurrer, but the issue joined necessarily required at the trial proof of the facts so de- fectively stated or omitted, such defect or omission is cured at common law by the verdict,1 Code, Art. 75, sec. 9,-' see Dorsey v. Hays, 7 H. & J. 370; Vandersmith v. Washmein's Adm'r, 1 H. & G. 4; Cappeau v. Middle- ton, 1 H. & G. 154; Osgood v. Lewis, 2 H. & G. 495; Charlotte Hall School 1 Wilson v. Cottman, 65 Md. 190; Treusch v. Kamke, 63 Md. 274; N. C. Ry. Co. v. Mills, 61 Md. 355; Soper v. Jones, 56 Md. 503; McKnew v. Duvall, 45 Md. 501, 511; Herbert v. Wich, 45 Md. 474; Black v. Woodrow, 39 Md. 194; Gent v. Cole, 38 Md. 110; Balto. C. P. Ry. Co. v. Sewell, 35 Md. 250; Vernon v. Tucker, 30 Md. 456. Cf. Hartsock v. Mort, 76 Md. 281; Charles Co. v. Mandanyohl, 93 Md. 156- 2 This section of the Code of 1860, which was but an affirmance of the common law rule, was repealed by the Act of 1888, ch. 547. This act, however, repealed and re-enacted sec. 8 of the Code of 1860 as follows: "No judgment shall be arrested or set aside for any omission of mere matter of form, nor because one or more of the counts in the declaration may be bad, if there be one count sufficient in substance, nor because of any misjoinder of forms of actions or of counts, nor for any other matter or cause which might have been subject of general demurrer to the declara- tion or other pleadings." Code 1911, Art. 75, sec. 9 The amendment con- sists of the words in italics- The question of when a defect in the plead- ings will and when it will not be cured by verdict is therefore a matter of little importance, as under this act no judgment can be arrested for any cause which might have been the subject of general demurrer. For a full discussion of this subject, see Poe's Pleading, secs. 702-704, 752-756 A. For a defective instruction cured by verdict, see Webster v. Moore, 108 Md. 572. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
| Volume 194, Page 432 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives