Wells’ Notebook, 369
Court of Common Pleas of Delaware.
April, 1808.
Action of debt on a bond for £80, with an agreement that it should be discharged upon the payment of two hundred bushels of corn, if delivered by a certain time.
Page 35
Cooper and Horsey for plaintiffs, an Bayard and Vandyke for defendants.
Defendant’s counsel offered the pleas of non est factum,
payment, etc. Objected to by the plaintiff’s counsel that the pleas were repugnant. They quoted 1 Sell.Pr. 329.
PER CURIAM.
The pleas are inconsistent and cannot be pleaded.
N. B. The motive for putting in these pleas was to take advantage of a variance between the bond as shown on oyer and the one declared on.
The defendant’s counsel then offered the plea of nil debet in modo et forma etc. This the Court rejected likewise.