THOMAS BELL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICKSBURG
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Thomas Bell sued the City of Vicksburg on a sealed instrument payable to bearer, and the city filed fifteen pleas in defense, including a non est factum plea filed without the affidavit required by Mississippi statute. The Supreme Court held that in states with statutes requiring an affidavit for a non est factum plea, the plea is demurrable without such affidavit, and the Circuit Court erred in sustaining the plea where state practice required the affidavit as a condition of filing. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, establishing that federal courts sitting in states must follow state pleading rules regarding the procedural requirements for defensive pleas.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff instituted this suit upon a sealed Instrument, made in the name of the city of Vicksburg, payable to bearer. The defendant.pleaded fifteen pleas; to ten of which the plain-, tiff demurred,- and judgment was rendered for the defendant on the demurrer. Some ."of these pleas involved important questions touching the validity of the instrument, which have, since the decision'of the Circuit Court, been the subject of discussion in the Supreme Court of Mississippi and in this court. It is conceded that nine of the pleas'were insufficient, and'that the demurrers should have -been sustained to them. The re-' maining plea is the ordinary non est factum. This was filed without an affidavit of its truth, and this is required by. a •statute of Mississippi to authorize its reception. But the defendant contends that it is the-office of-a demurrer to call in question the sufficiency of a declaration or other pleading upon what appears upon its face, without reference to any extrinsic matter; that the affidavit is not a part of the plea; it is only that which is necessary to authorize the plea to be placed on •file, and it may be-waived either expressly or by implication. The filing of the plea is only irregular, aud a demurrer or replicatiou to it is a waiver. Upon the general principles of pleading, we assent to the accuracy of this argument.
Commercial and R. R. Bank of Vicksburg, 18 Pet., 60.
Nicholl v. Mason, 21 Wend., 839.
But in courts of States in which this, statute exists, a plea of non est factum, without the affidavit required by it, is demurrable. Such is the practice in Mississippi.
Smith v. Com. Bank of Rodney, 6 S. and M., 83. Johnston v. Beard, 7 S. and M., 214.
Bancroft v. Paine, 15 Ala., 834; 4 Ala., 198.
We do not question the power of the Circuit Court to maintain the rules of pleading in the manner of applying the statutes of a State, or it may adopt the usual practice in the State, if not contrary to an act of Congress.
We learn that the course of. practice in the Circuit Court conforms to the State'practice; We suppose that it would be a surprise upon the. plaintiff, and might work injustice, if we were to sustain the plea under such circumstances.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.