
    ABERCROMBIE vs. KNOX & CO.
    1. An objection to the form of a declaration merely, is not avail-. able, under our statute of amendments.
    Error to Talladega Circuit court.
    Assumpsit, against the endorser of a bill of exchange —tried before iShortridge, J.
    The plaintiff in error was sued in the Circuit court of Talladega, as the first endorser of a bill of exchange, payable at the branch of the State Bank at Montgomery. Presentment and non-payment were duly alleged, but the declaration, did not negative the payment of the bill, by the drawer or subsequent endorser, in its breach. And for this cause, it was insisted, that the declaration was too defective to sustain the judgment.
    
      Stone, for plaintiff in error.
    Martin, contra.
   COLLIER, C. J.

The judgment, it may be remarked, is by nil dicil, on plea withdrawn, and in its form, may cure defects, which would be otherwise available. But we do not think the declaration would have been bad on demurrer; the objection, at most, is to th&formx which our statute of jeofails of eighteen hundred and twenty-four, does not tolerate. It was enough, then, to have stated a legal liability by the plaintiff in error, and his failure to discharge it; this is sufficiently done, and if the bill had been paid by either of the other parties, he might have shown it, in his defence — (Vide Hennell’s Forms, 119 ; 3 vol. Law Lib.)

Judgment must be affirmed.  