
    Philip W. Cecil, Administrator of B. W. Eckols, deceased, Respondent, v. Andrew J. Tutt, and Geo. F. Royston, Appellants.
    
      Appeal from Henry Circuit Court.
    
    
      Hyland fy Son, for respondent.
    I. The plaintiff contends he had a right to sue on this note as administrator, and having done so, the plaintiff’s petition was not answered by defendants in the first statement of the answer filed by them. That part of the answer was therefore properly stricken out. See cases referred to in defendant’s brief in the case of Lessing v. Yertrees, decided at this term of the court.
    The balance of the answer was properly stricken out, because the said part of said answer and the facts therein stated were not stated in such proper an,d legal manner as offer a good defence to plaintiff’s action.
    The only question in the case arises on the latter part of defendants’ answer. The answer avers that the negro woman was unsound, and that the man was old and worthless. So far as regards the man nothing is offered by way of defence. What was the unsoundness of the woman ? How much did it injure her? What representations were made, and how were they false and fraudulent ? The answer is too loose, too general: not made with the particularity and certainty to a common intent in general. It is therefore insufficient, and was properly stricken out. Hence there is no error in the court below, and judgment should be affirmed.
   Dryden, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes before us in the same way and presents the same question as the case of Cecil, adm’r of Eckols, v. Spurger, decided at the present term of this court; and, for the reason stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment of the Circuit Court in this, is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to proceed with the same in conformity with this opinion.

The other judges concur.  