
    Simpson Hart versus Jospeh P. Hardy.
    In specifications of defence, under the statute of 1855, c. 174, § 4, it is not sufficient for the defendant to aver generally that “the plaintiff has no claim whatever against him.”
    The specifications must be more than a plea of the general issue, and sufficient to apprise the plaintiff of the obstacles that would be presented to the maintenance of his suit; otherwise the defendant will be defaulted.
    On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Hathaway, J., presiding.
    This was an action of assumpsit. The amount claimed was $220,62.
    The defendant filed his specifications of defence with the clerk of the court for the county of Waldo, as follows:—
    •“Waldo, ss. — Supreme Judicial Court, Oct. term, 1855.
    “ Simpson Hart v. Joseph P. Hardy.
    
    “ The defendant in this action, says for a defence, that the plaintiff has no claim whatever against him. And defendant further says that he believes that there is a good defence to said action. And he further says that he intends in good faith to make a defence.” (Signed,) “Joseph P. Hardy.
    “Frankfort, Sept. 15, 1855.”
    The defendant claimed to go to trial, but the Court refused to allow it, and ordered the defendant to be defaulted.
    To this ruling and order of the Court the defendant excepted.
    
      Hubbard, for plaintiff.
    
      J. G. Dickerson, for defendant.
   Tenney, C. J.

This is a case, wherein the defendant appeared and desired a trial, and was required to file with the clerk of the court a specification in brief of the nature and grounds of his defence, &c., according to the statute of 1855, c. 174, § 4.

The object of the statute was, undoubtedly, that the other party might be apprised of the obstacles, which would be presented to the maintenance of his suit, in season to be prepared for a trial, without incurring useless expense. More was required than a mere statement, that the plaintiff had no claim. The plea of the general issue, which could be filed at any time before the trial commenced, would indicate all this.

It requires no argument to prove, that the statement, the plaintiff has no claim whatever against him,” is not a compliance with the provision of the statute.

Exceptions overruled, judgment on the default.

Hathaway, Appleton and May, J. J., concurred.

Goodenow, J.,

did not concur in the opinion of the Court, and expressed his dissent as follows: —

I do not concur. The specification of defence was sufficient to give notice to the plaintiff that he would be required to prove his case, under the general issue.  