
    Oakley’s executors vs. Romeyn’s heirs and devisees.
    It is not allowed to a plaintiff to sum-join double to the rejoinder of the defendant.
    Motion to sum-join double. The plaintiff claimed that within the equity of the statute allowing a plaintiff to reply several matters to the plea of a defendant, and permitting a defendant to rejoin several matters to the replication of a plaintiff, he should be allowed to sum-join double to the rejoinder put in by the defendant. But,
   By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

The construction given to the statute, 4 Ann, ch. 16, § 4, enacted here, 1 R. L. 519, § 10, permitting a defendant, with the leave of the court, to plead as many several matters as be shall think necessary for his defence has been, that it did not extend to any other pleading than "a plea. By the Revised Statutes, vol. 1, 856, § 27, a plaintiff may reply, and a defendant may rejoin double, but beyond the statute, the parties cannot go. The motion is denied.

P. A. Jay, for plaintiffs.

Romeyn <?* Van Burén, for defendants.  