This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1846 edition. Excerpt: ...then, in the reign of Henry VI. when as yet the distinction between general and special demurrer was not known, the court was bound to reject the special plea. Yet in consequence of this supposed conflict between these two cases, and a real difference of opinion between Lyttleton and Fitzherbert on a kindred point, the question whether the deed of a madman is absolutely and ipso facto void, has remained in some uncertainty for four hundred years. Now suppose that in the reign of Henry VT. the law requiring specifications of defects of form had been the same as now, and suppose the plaintiff to have demurred specially to the plea of insanity, as amounting to the general issue. The case being called up we suppose the defendant to profess frankly that he thinks it does so, and to declare, that it is only because he is not sure of it, that fie did not plead the general issue. He has plead in this form, in order to have the question decided. This aim is baffled by the special demurrer, in the argument of which he would be placed in a false position, and almost constrained to support the form of his plea by proving it to be bad in substance. In this dilemma we suppose the court to require the plaintiff to strike out the specification from his demurrer, and demur generally, or to take issue on the plea. They see that no harm can come of this, for, if the plaintiff demurs generally, judgment will be given for him unless the plea be substantially good, and if he takes issue and the issue be found for the defendant, still, if the plea be not substantially good, judgment on the whole record will be entered for the plaintiff, non obstante veredicto. We suppose then the plaintiff to demur generally, and the demurrer to be overruled, as, according to...