
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    MAY, 1810.
    William Walker v. The Adm’rs of Richard Talioferro.
    Where several issues are made up, if the jury find for the defendant on any one of them, it will be sufficient; and they need not find for the plaintiff, on any of the others, though he would be entitled to have them decided m his favor, if it were necessary to decide them.
    Motion for a new trial. Assumpsit on a promissory note, tried before Brevard, J., in York district. Pleas: 1st, non assumpsit. 2d, the limitation act. 3d, plene administravit, before notice of plaintiff’s claim. At the trial, the plaintiff admitted that he had no evidence to offer to rebut the evidence on the part of the defendant to maintain his second plea, or to save the claim from the operation of the limitation act. But it was insisted, on his part, that the court should direct the jury to find for the plaintiff, on the issue to (he first and third pleas, as there was no evidence given to support them. The court did not deem it necessary, for any reason which was offered, to direct the jury to find separately on the separate issues, as finding for the defendant, on any one of them, would defeat the plaintiff’s title to recover on any one of them,' unless as to the costs of those issues found for the plaintiff; and as it had never been the practice in this State, as far as was known to the court, to tax the costs separately and distinctly on different issues, how many soever there' might be, unless a special application to the court should be made for that purpose, which had never been known by the court to be done, there could be no propriety in finding for the plaintiff on any of the issues.
    The motion for a new trial was argued the first of May, by Hookes, for the plaintiff, and Gist, for the defendant.
    Hookes.
    Plaintiff was entitled to a\ Verdict on two of the issues, and to judgment on them, though he could.not recover the money due on the note, the same, being prevented by the operation of the limitation act under the second issue, on which the defendant was entitled to a verdict. 1 T. R. 118. 2 T. R. Sellon’sPrac. 488. Esp. Dig. 128. 4 T. R. 214. This special finding would be consistent with the truth of the case, consistent with the practice of the courts in England, and was necessary and proper to the justice of this particular case. If the issue on the first and third pleas had been found for the plaintiff, it might have been contended on his part,' that the defendant was not entitled to judgment, the finding for him, on the plea of the limitation act, to the contrary notwithstanding, because that plea was not properly pleaded. It should have been actio non accrevit, instead of non assumpsit infra, &c. The issue on this plea of non assumpsit infra qua/uor annos was immaterial in this case ; and if the judgment rested on the finding of the jury on this plea only, it might be arrested. 2 Salk. 463. 2 Saund. 63. 1 L’d Raym. 135. 3 East. 346.
    Gist, contra.
    
    If several pleas are pleaded, any'' of which are sufficient to bar the plaintiff’s claim, a general verdict is proper. 1 Wils. 54.
   4th May, 1810.

Bay, J.,

delivered the opinion of the whole court. No sufficient reason has been assigned to shew that a general verdict was not properly rendered in this case. If the plea of the limitation act had been pleaded in due form, it is admitted by the plaintiff’s counsel that a general verdict would be proper enough, because it could serve no useful end to find on any of the issues for the plaintiff, provided the defendants were entitled to judgment on the plea of the limitation act. But the plea of the limitation act being informal, the plaintiff is desirous of taking advantage of the defect in arrest of judgment. This court seeing bis object, will not aid him in defeating the legal merits of the case by such .means. The plaintiff should have demurred to the plea.

Note. See Cro Ja. 473. Bull N. P. 57. In replevin, defendant avowed-foil £36 rent, for a year and half. Plaintiff pleaded payment fdr £lá, and issua thereon, and another issue on the £24. The first issue was found for plaintiff,- •and damages and costs taxed by the jury. But the second issue being found against plaintiff, so that defendant was entitled to a return, and to damages and costs, it was, on motion, holden, that the finding damages and costs for plaintiff, was void. 4 East. 396. Judgments entered for plaintiff on some counfs, and for defendants on others, were consistent.

Motion rejected.  