Bliss v. Bliss

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bliss v. Bliss, 53 Mass. 266 (Mass. 1847)
Shaw

Bliss v. Bliss

Opinion of the Court

Shaw, C. J.

The rule is well settled, that in the action of assumpsit, nonjoinder of defendants can be taken advantage of by plea in abatement, and in that way only. 1 Saund. 291, c. note. Lawes PI. in Assump. 108. This rule is not altered by the Rev. Sts. c. 100, which authorize an amendment by striking out defendants. Whenever, by such amendment, the suit is subject to abatement, the defendant has a right to plead in abatement, though after the first term. Rathbone v. Rathbone, 4 Pick. 89. Robbins v. Hill, 12 Pick. 569. The present *268defendant, if he wished to avail himself of the nonjoinder of his co-contractors, after their names were stricken out of the writ and declaration, should have pleaded in abatement.

Exceptions overruled.

Reference

Full Case Name
Zeba Bliss v. Jonathan Bliss
Status
Published