Lee v. Rutledge

Bowie, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants, Lee & Brother, sued the appellee in the Circuit Court for Harford County, in an action of trover. The declaration set out that the plaintiffs were possessed of an improved Champion reaping and mowing machine, of the value of $190, which they lost, and the same came to the possession of the defendant, who converted the same, etc. The defendant pleaded first, actio non, because the machine in plaintiffs’ declaration mentioned, came into the possession of defendant, under an agreement between plaintiffs and defendant, that they would furnish defendant a good and sufficient machine of four and a half foot cut, which the defendant should have the privilege of trying, and if not satisfactory to him, the plaintiffs would take it away, that the plaintiffs did not furnish such a machine, but furnished the machine in the declaration mentioned; that they broke and violated their contract with defendant, whereby he has sustained damages to the amount of $400, which he claims to set off against plaintiffs’ demand. For a second plea, the defendant says, he is not guilty of the wrong alleged.

The appellants, plaintiffs below, demurred to the first plea, and joined issue upon the second. The Court below overruled the appellants’ demurrer, which constitutes the first ground of appeal. At the trial, the defendant, to support the issue joined on bis part, offered to prove he had sent his team and ³¹⁷ hands on three several occasions to receive the machine mentioned in the plaintiffs’ declaration, and it was not received until the third and last trip, and offered to prove the machine which he received was a five foot cut machine, and that he had ordered a four and a half foot cut. The plaintiffs objected to the admission of this evidence, but the Court overruled the objection, and allowed the same to go to the jury, to which ruling, the plaintiffs excepted.

The verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the plaintiffs appealed. The defendant’s first plea in this case, does not deny f.he injury complained of, or confess and avoid it. Under whatever system of pleading it may be regarded, it is radically defective. In the case of Stirling vs. Garritee, 18 Md., 474 , this Court, speaking of the object of the Legislature in passing the Act of 1856, ch. 112, (which is codified in Art. 75, Title “ Pleadings, Practice and Process,”) said the purpose was to simplify the rules and forms of pleading and practice in Courts of law; “ and while the Act classifies and provides the forms of action for those on contract, and for actions for wrongs independent of contract, yet it must be apparent the distinctive nature of actions remains, although the old forms have been abolished and new ones adopted.” “ It is impossible to disregard the substantial principles, which underlie our system of jurisprudence and to some extent govern the forms of action.

These principles must still be recognized, however the new form may be changed or simplified. To disregard them would lead to endless confusion.” This case has