
    Horace M. Lewis v. Peter Coulter.
    Error to the common pleas of Hocking county. Reserved in* the district court.
    The plaintiff in error, defendant below, filed an answer to the-petition of the plaintiff below, in these words :
    “ The said defendant denies all the material allegations of said’, plaintiff in his said petition.”
    To this the plaintiff below demurred, and assigned for cause that, the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the ■ action. The court below sustained the demurrer, and the defendant excepted, but thereupon took leave to file an amended answeiy which'he did, and in which he made his denials more specific and. certain. On the issue thus joined there was a trial, and the plaintiff below had a verdict and judgment.
    The ruling of the court sustaining the demurrer to the first answer, is assigned for error.
    
      *8aunders'& Wright, for plaintiff in error.
    
      8. P. Vanatta, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

1. The court below erred in sustaining the demurrer. The answer, liberally construed, as required by the code ■ (sec. 2), was good on demurrer. But,

2. The defendant below having filed an amended answer, and had, under that, all the benefits he could have derived from the first. answer, the error is not such as requires a reversal of the judgment.

3. The first answer, though good on demurrer, was not sufficiently certain and specific ; and, had a motion been made for that purpose, the defendant below might have been properly required-to make the same more certain and specific. A pleader ought not to be permitted, by the use of the qualifying word, material,” to assume to himself the determination of the questions as to what facts are material, and thus render a conviction for perjury, on a willfully false verification, difficult or impossible. And where the denial is general, it should be not simply of “ all,” but of each and--, all,” or “each and every” of the allegations referred to.

Judgment affirmed.  