Pearce v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 15 March 1888
• Citation: 13 A. 376,68 Md. 534
• Parties: PEARCE v. WATKINS et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

13 A. 376

68 Md. 534

PEARCE

v. WATKINS et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 15, 1888.

Appeal from Baltimore court of common pleas.

Action by Luke J. Pearce against Charles E. Watkins et al. Judgment was rendered for the defendants, upon demurrer to the declaration, and plaintiff appeals.

Jos. P. Merryman and John Johnson, for appellant. Wm. Colton, for appellees.

IRVING, J. Judgment was rendered for the appellees in the court below, upon demurrer to the appellant's declaration; and the sole question for review is whether the declaration is bad, as the court of common pleas held it to be. 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, Md., and caused to be 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 $1,000, 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 the plaintiff the 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 the plaintiff. * * * And he claims $5,000 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." Dandridge's Case, 8 Gill & J. 311. Although the Code, art. 75, § 3, says, "Any plain statement of the facts necessary to constitute a ground of action shall be sufficient," yet it says in same article, § 2, that whatever facts are necessary to constitute a ground of...