Pearce v. Watkins

Irving, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Judgment was rendered for the appellee in the Court below upon demurrer to the appellant’s declaration ; and the sole question for review is whether the declaration is had as the Court of Common Pleas held it to he. The narr. begins by charging that the defendants, with others, were the officers of an alleged corporation called the “ Guarantee Life insurance Company of Baltimore, Maryland,” and caused to he issued to the plaintiff two policies of insurance upon the life of Adam Keck, a maternal uncle of the plaintiff, giving their respective dates, and stating that each policy was for one thousand dollars, and that Adam Keck had since died. This is all that is stated in the first count.

The second count charges that, on the demand of the defendants during the life of Adam Keck, the plaintiff paid them a large sum of money as premiums or assessments on the policies, which “ they illegally and unlawfully took and used.” The third count alleges large payments to the defendants after the death of the insured, Adam Keck, “ which the defendants illegally took and divided and appropriated to themselves.” The fourth count is in these words: “ And for that the said defendants representing themselves ■ as officers of a corporation conducting a lawful and legitimate business of life insurance in the City of Baltimore and State of Maryland, fraudulently obtained from this plaintiff large sums of money.” The fifth count reads thus : “ for that the said defendants, demand having been made, refuse to pay to the plaintiff the ⁵³⁸ sums of money fraudulently obtained from him by the defendants ; ” and the sixth count is, “ for that the defendants, demand having been made, refuse to pay the policies of insurance as aforesaid, due and owing to the plaintiff,” “ and he claims $500 damages.” The demurrer admits the facts which are well pleaded. If any one count is good the demurrer cannot be sustained ; but to be good it must be so independently of the others which may be deemed bad. “The object of all pleading is that parties litigant may be mutually apprised of the matters in controversy between them.” Penn., Del. and Md. Steam Navigation Co. vs. Dandridge, 8 G. & J., 311 . Although,the Code, Art .15, sec. 3,says, “any plain statement of the facts necessary to constitute a ground of action shall be sufficient,” yet it says in the same Article, sec. 2, that whatever facts are necessary to constitute a ground of