This case illustrates the extreme formality required of parties in their pleadings and the effect of a deviation from the rules of strict conformance with rules of legal convention. Here, the omission of a single letter in his declaration changed the plaintiff's case from a simple suit in debt to one involving a detailed discussion of phonetics. The dispute began on March 8, 1826, when the plaintiff, Joseph Garres, alleged that William Bradford executed a bond to him for $118 with 6% interest. This lawsuit turned on whether the bond was executed to Joseph Garres or Joseph Grres. In any case, the plaintiff was not paid before William Bradford's death, and Bradford's widow and executrix Frances also refused to pay Garres out of the assets of his estate. Thus, on August 18, 1827, Joseph Garres, through his attorney Chester Ashley, filed a declaration in debt in the Superior Court. The declaration claimed a debt for $118 with 6% interest and damages of $100. No bail was required of Frances Bradford. The same day, the clerk of the court, David E. McKinney, issued a writ of capias for Frances Bradford commanding her to appear and answer for the debt to Joseph Garres. William Quarles, Frances' attorney in fact, acknowledged due service of the writ and promised to enter his appearance on her behalf. On August 27, 1827, McKinney noted that he had received the tax and issuing fee on the capias from Chester Ashley.

On October 17, 1827, Frances Bradford was given leave to plead and the parties agreed that the trial be continued at the next term of the court. Six months later, on April 19, 1828, Frances Bradford craved oyer of the bond declared on – that is, she demanded to see a copy of it and have it read. Garress granted her oyer request by filing the original bond. Frances Bradford, by her attorney, filed a demurrer to the Garres' declaration, to which Garres objected by filing a joinder. They both argued their sides to the court and a week later, on April 25, the court ordered that Bradford's demurrer be sustained and that she recover her costs of the demurrer from Garres. The next day, on motion of Garres by his attorney, the court ordered that he have leave to file an amended declaration. On April 28, 1828, Garres did file his amendment, and he moved that he have leave to withdraw the original declaration. The court granted his motion, and Daniel Ringo, the deputy clerk of the court, filed the amended complaint. In the amended complaint, drafted by Ashley, Garres alleged that Bradford had promised to pay the plaintiff, "by the name, style and description of Grres" which had been written by mistake and was meant to be written Joseph Garres.

At the next term of court, on October 20, 1828, Frances's attorney, William Cummins, moved that she be permitted to plead. The court granted her motion and ordered that the suit be continued until the next term. Daniel Ringo again filed a copy of the bond on oyer. The very next day, Bradford filed a plea denying that William obligated himself to pay Garres by the manner and style of Joseph Grres, and put herself "upon the country"–that is, she requested a jury trial. Garres filed a demurrer to her plea, and she filed her joinder stating that the variance in the declaration was fatal and that he should not prevail. Cummins made an eloquent argument in the joinder that if the court was to insert an "a" in the name it might just as well insert another vowel, or multiple syllables. The court heard arguments from both sides and handed down the opinion that the matters set forth by Bradford in her plea were sufficient in law to bar Garres from maintaining his action against her. Therefore, it was considered that Bradford recover of Garres the costs of said demurrer, and by consent it was ordered that the suit be continued until the next term of the court. However, on April 13, 1829, Garres refused to prosecute his suit any further so the Court dismissed the case and ordered Garres to pay Bradford her costs of the suit.

Previous Case | Next Page