
    Jacob Benner & als. in Error, versus Matthias Welt.
    In a snit in error, Where the cause assigned for the reversal of the judgment is, that a part of the defendants in the original suit were minors and did not answer by guardian or next friend, and the defendant in error pleads in millo est erratum, the fact alleged, not being traversed by that plea, is to be treated as admitted; that plea putting in issue only such errors as appear on the face of the record.
    If a judgment against several defendants is reversed for error as to a part of them, it is reversed wholly, for it cannot be affirmed as to the others.
    Writ oe Error, brought by Jacob Benner, the second, Isaac Oliver, Lewis Benner, the second, Edward Benner, the second, and Isaac Schwartz, the last three plaintiffs in error sueing by Rufus J. Eeyler, their guardian and next friend, they being minors and under the age of twenty-one years, to reverse a judgment of this Court rendered against them at the January term, 1856, in favor of Matthias Welt, the present defendant in error. The error specified is stated in the opinion of the Court.
    The defendant in error pleided in nidio est erratum. A hearing was had at the October term, 1857, before Tenney, C. J., who decided that the judgment be reversed as to all the defendants therein named. To which decision the defendant in error filed Exceptions.
    
      Bulfinch, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Oakes, for defendant in error.
   The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Tenney, C. J.

This is a writ of error, to reverse a judgment recovered by Matthias Welt, against the plaintiffs in error in this Court. The errors assigned are that Lewis Benner, 2d, Edward Benner, 2d, and Isaac Schwartz, were minors and under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of the rendition of said judgment, and did not answer by their guardian, or next friend, or by a guardian ad litem,, appointed for them by the Court as by law was required, and judgment was illegally rendered against said Jacob Benner, 2d, Lewis Benner, 2d, Isaac Schwartz and Isaac Oliver. The defendant in the present suit pleads in mullo est erratum, without putting in issue any fact alleged in the writ of error.

..The pie am nullo est erratum is in. the nature of a demurrer, putting in issue only such errors as may be shown on the face of the record. Goodridge & al. v. Ross, 6 Met. 487. Therefore the alleged fact that three of the plaintiffs in error were minors - at • the- • time the judgment was rendered,, not being traversed-in'the pleadings, is to be treated as admitted.

If the judgment is reversed as to a portion of the .present plaintiffs, it cannot be affirmed as to the others. Richards & al. v. Walton, 12 Johns. 434; Arnold v. Sandford, 14 Johns. 417.

Exceptions overruled.

Rice, Hathaway, Appleton, May, and -Davis, J. J., concurred. ■  