| Volume 375, Page 2366 View pdf image (33K) |
|
2366 AETIOLE 75.
(70) That the defendant was not entitled to the said way over the
(71) That the alleged trespass was not a use by the defendant of the
(72) That the defendant was not within the age of twenty-one years, (73) That the alleged deed was not delivered as an escrow, as alleged.
(74) That the defendant was not, and is not now, the wife of one W.
(75) That the defendant did not make the alleged deed by duress, as (76) That the alleged deed was not procured by the fraud of the plaintiff.
(77) That the defendant did not commit the alleged assault in his own New Assignment.
(If the plaintiff replies and new assigns, the new assignment may be
(78) The plaintiff, as to the and pleas, says, that he
The plea of new assignment is used with especial propriety in cases of trespass,
(79) And the plaintiff, as to the and pleas, further says,
(If the plaintiff replies and new assigns to some of the pleas, and new
(80) And the plaintiff, as to the and pleas, further says, Pleas in Abatement.
(81) That the plaintiff, at the time of issuing the summons in this case Pleas in abatement cannot be amendedsee sec. 47.
(82) That the plaintiff is within twenty-one years of age; and has |
||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Volume 375, Page 2366 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.