
    DIXONS LESSEE vs. CAVENAUGH.
    
      Ejectment. Plea in abatement for a misnomer.
    
    Effect of a plea of misnomer in ejectment.
    Grundy, for the plaintiff
    moved that the plea might be set saide as frivolous, as no plea in abatement could be sustained in an ejectment.
    Hays, e contra.
    
    When a plea in abatement, is regularly put in, there must be a replication or Demurrer 1 Tidds. pr. 588.
    A person can plead in abatement in ejectment, as well as in any other action. Ancient demesne was pleaded, 5. Co. 105. 2. Lord Ray, 4 18. 1. Salk. 56. 90. 2. Burr.1046. and 2 Boz. & Pu. 420.
    Grundy, in reply
    relied on 1 Tidd. 573, to shew that the plea of ancient demesne, could not be put in without leave ; and it is equally necessary no dilatory plea should be received in this action without leave.
   Per Curiam.

The act of 1801, c. 11. directs, that bail shall be taken of defendants in ejectment, so that costs may be rendered safe. If bail should not be given, the defendant must be committed of course. This act has induced the same necessity for precision in the name of a defendant in ejectment, as in any other action. Therefore the plea will be. But what will be its effect ? Not an abatment of the action. That remains as before the passage of the act ; the same form in every respect.

The plea in abatement discharges the defendants bail, but notice having been served on him, and having disclosed in his plea his true name, he must plead in chief by that name, or the court will permit judgment by default to be taken against him, and he will be turned out of possession.  