
    Zuill vers. Bradley.
    Where Father and Son of the fame Name reside in the same Town, it seems that the Omission of “junior,” in a Writ against the Son, is good Cause of Abatement.
    
      It seems, that Duplicity is no Objection to a Plea in Abatement.
    The Plaintiff sues Bradley by the Name of Daniel Bradley, of Haverhill, &c., Trader.
    Upon which the Defendant pleads as follows "And Daniel Bradley, junior, of Haverhill, &c "Innholder, whose Body was attached by this Writ "comes and says he is the same Person who was sued "by the said John Zuill by the Name of Daniel "Bradley, of Haverhill, &c., Trader. And the said Daniel Bradley, junior, says this Writ ought to abate "because he says that at the Time of the Purchase "thereof there were two Men in said Town of Ha"verhill known by the names of Daniel Bradley and "Daniel Bradley, junior, and that he hath been always called and known by the Name of Daniel Bradley, junior, and not by the Name of Daniel Bradley only, as in this Writ is supposed, and that the said Daniel Bradley, Senior, is his the said Daniel Bradley junior’s Father, and all this the said Daniel Bradley, junior, is ready to verify; wherefore he prays Judgment of this Writ that it abate, and for his Costs.
    1762.
    “2. The said Writ ought to abate, for that he the said Daniel Bradley, junior, was at the Time of the Purchase of this Writ, and still is, an Innholder, and not a Trader, as in this Writ is supposed, and this the also is ready to verify; wherefore he prays Judgment of this Writ that it abate, and for his Costs.” O. Thacher.
    
    To which it was objected, that there was a Duplicity which destroyed it, for that he pleaded, that is Name was Daniel Bradley, junior, and not Daniel Bradley only, and also that he was an Innholder and not a Trader; and Mod. was cited. Jut it was overruled. ()
    
      
      (1) The Court would seem to have held duplicity to be no objection a plea in abatement. The case of Trevelian v. Seccomb, Carth. 7, 8, seems to countenance such a view, but the mistake is explained in teph. Pl. note (56). See also Bac. Ab. Abatement, (P); and 5 Pick. 13, where the objection of duplicity was overruled on the ground that he of the allegations was surplusage. It has been held in the Superior court of Suffolk, that under the Practice Act of 1852, an answer in statement may be objected to for duplicity, on motion. 20 Law Rep. 63. And this on the ground that the answer is subject to the same des against duplicity as was formerly the plea. But before the Practice Act, duplicity could not be taken advantage of. St. 1836, c. 273, 3. 1 Cush. 137. And by § 13 of the act, “different consistent dences may be stated in the same answer.”
    
   Upon a full Hearing, it was ruled, that as the were in the same Town, and Father and Son, it with a Misnomer sufficient to abate the Writ. ( ) C Tuft, doubted of the Words “ there were.” H thinks that the Latin Word “ habentur ” is of greate Extent, but supposes it is not sufficient to make bad. () 
      
      (2) “ It seems to be only in the case of a father and son of the fam names, that the addition is required to be stated in a writ where the f is made defendant.” Kincaid v. Howe, 10 Mass. 204. See also 5 Dan Ab. 705. To the point that “junior” is no part of a man’s nam but an addition used to describe and designate the person, see 1 Pic 388; 15 Pick. 7; 17 Pick. 200.
     
      
      (3) It appears, however, by the record, that the judgment was final given “ on the second exception,” perhaps on account of the Chief Justice’s doubt on this point.
     