
    Templeton et al. v. Planters’ Bank.
    A plea which, omits the technical defence is not a nullity; the defect is only the subject of a special demurrer.
    ERROR from the circuit court of Warren county.
    The defendants below, in their own proper persons, filed the general issue in the following words: «The defendants, Joseph Templeton, Alexander McNeil, John Henderson, and William Henderson come into court in proper person and say, they did not undertake or promise to pay as set forth in the plaintiff’s declaration, and they put themselves on the country.” This plea was signed by all the defendants. At a subsequent term of the court, the plaintiff below treated the plea as a nullity, and took judgment by default, which is assigned for error.
    Tompkins, for plaintiff' in error.
    If the plea of the defendants below had been of that class properly to be denominated nullities, then the judgment for the plaintiff below might be right; as for instance, if the action had been in covenant, detinue, debt, &c. The action being assumpsit, or, entitled of parties different from those named in the declaration, then it might properly be treated as a nullity; but the action being in as-sumpsit, and the plea to an action of assumpsit, and entitled of the same court and parties, the omission in the plea of the words « come and defend” cannot render it a nullity, but if a defect at all, is such defect as can be taken advantage of on special demurrer only.
    Every plea must be disposed of in some manner; if issuable it must be replied to; if demurrable, demurred to; if frivolous, there must be a motion to strike out. The plea being in, and not disposed of in either of the modes enumerated, it is certainly error to take judgment by default. Every plea must be disposed of. See Walker’s Reports, p. 108; Selser’s case.
    
      Smedes for defendants.
    In Caines’ Practice, page 202, it is said, “ The rule laid down by the court to ascertain when a plea may be considered a nullity, is £ that a plea to be treated as a nullity must be absolutely bad on the face of it, so that none of the court entertain a doubt of it.’ ” Platt v. Robinson, Cole, 81. Was the plea in this case absolutely bad ? “ Every plea in bar must begin with defence.” Com. Dig. Plea. E. 27. It is in fact no plea unless it makes defence. Stephen on Pleading, 483-4. Gould’s Pleading, 31, 32. The plea is not “non assumpsit,” it lacks all the essentials of one. It does not deny the “undertaking- in manner and form,” &c. but limits itself to a denial of “ a promise to pay,” &c. which forms no express part of the general issue, and in fact presents a special issue. The declaration alledges the making of a note. The plea sets up a denial of a promise to pay. The plea then is clearly not the general issue, and is one unknown to the law and a nullity. “ Where a plea is put in which is a nullity, the plaintiff may cither enter a default for want of a plea or demurrer.” Fale v. Stickney, 3 John. 541. “The pleas put in were palpably bad, and the plaintiff was at liberty to treat them as nullities.” 1 Wend. 14, Sharp v. Sharp.
    The plea in this case is one in proper person, and clearly drafted by an unpractised hand. It deserves no leniency on that account; the rule that “ every thing shall be taken most strongly against the pleader,” 1 San. 258, a. applies the more strongly here. Attorneys at law are officers of the court, whose especial duty it is when engaged in a cause to prepare the pleadings correctly. For negligence or gross error he is individually responsible to his client. Appearances in proper person, except in cases where the law requires it, is discountenanced by and contrary to the policy of the law. As a remuneration for the expense and toil of acquiring a knowledge of the profession, the employment of attorneys is made almost essential. And it is not to be endured that the records of the courts shall be filled with irregular, informal and misshapen pleadings, filed by ignorant men, too miserly to employ regular counsel; and when their pleas are stricken out or treated as nullities by the courts below, that they shall come to this court to remedy the defects of their own stupidity.
    Guión on the same side.
   Opinion of the court by

Mr. Justice TtjRnee.

This-is a writ of error from the circuit court of Warren county. The error' chiefly relied on, and which alone will bo noticed, is as. follows, viz:

That the defendants-below having appeared and filed their plea in the court below, at the return term of the process in said cause, it was error to allow the plaintiffs below, at a subsequent term of the court' to take judgment as by default, without in any wise disposing of said plea.

The defendants in this writ of error, contend that the plea filed in the cause in the court below is a nullity, ahd that they had a right to treat it as such. We admit that if the' plea is a nullity, the plaintiff below was at liberty to treat it as such. 3 J R. 541. But is the plea a nullity? The action is assumpsit on a promissory note. The record shows that the defendants below, in proper person, came into coui't and filed the following plea, to wit: "The defendants, Joseph Templeton, Alexander Mc-Neill, John Henderson, and William Henderson, came into court in proper person, and say they did not undertake and promise to pay, - &c.]as set forth in the plaintiff’s declaration, and they put themselves on the country,” and the ■ plea is signed by each defendant separately.

It is said that this is not a plea, because it does not contain the words, “come and defend the wrong and injury when, &c.” and many authorities are cited, to show the common law requisites of a plea. In answer to this, it is said in the books, that these words are merely technical, and mere matter of form. The substance of the matter is, that the defendants came into court and pleaded to the action, in due season, acknowledging the jurisdiction of the court, the sufficiency of the declaration, but’ deny their liability, because' they say that “they did not undertake and promise to pay, &c.” as set forth in the ,plaintiff’s declaration. See .Gould’s Pleading, 31 — 2. The cause of action as set forth in the declaration, is fully and explicitly met and denied, and an issue to the country tendered.

We consider that the plea is not in due form, and that a special demurrer thereto might have been sustained. When a proper case is made, the courts will adhere to the forms of pleading; but, where a plea is merely informal, we do not consider that a plaintiff is at liberty to treat it as a nullity. The defendants below, by the course taken by the plaintiffs, were denied the privilege of a jury trial, and the benefit of the various matters which might have been given in evidence under the general issue.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in the court below.  