HTTCtHES V. ELSHEB. 263 �cited at the tar, that Buch is not the effect of any plea vrhen it is filed Bimultaneously with the others. I am unable to (listingTiish this case from True v. Huntoon, ôe N. H. 121, which decides that point. Motion to set aside pleas denied. ���Hughes v. Elsheb. �{Cireuit Court, D. New Bampshire. December 28, 1880.) �l. Plea nr Abatement— Motion foe New Trial Pendutg in Stath Court. — Plaint iff brougbt an action in the circuit court for the dis- trict of New Hampshire for breach of covenant contained in a deed purporting to convey certain land. The defendant pleaded in abate- ment a bill of complaint and motion for a new trial of actions, founded upon a part of the purcliase-money notes, then pending in the State court. Ileid, that the plea in abatement was bad. — [Ed. �Covenant. Plea in Abatement. �W. H. Dodge and Mr. Copeland, for plaistiff. �Thomas J. Smith, for defendant, �IvOWELi., C. J. In tiiis action of covenant broken, the plain- tif, Patrici Hughes, of Dover, New Hampshire, declares that the defendant, Martha Elsher, of Jersey City, New Jersey, in Oetober, 1870, in consideration oi $3,500, paid her by the plaintiff, made and delivered to him a deed, executed by her as gnardian of her minor children, purporting to convey to him certain land in Dover, and covenanted that she bad com- plied with the requirements of the statute in relation to sales by guardians, whereas she had failed to follow the statute in certain particulars, by reason of which omissions the plain- tiff acquired no title to the lands. �The defendant pleads that the plaintiff bas brought a bill of complaint and motion for new trial against her in the supreme court of New Hampshire, a copy of which is made part of the plea, in which the plaintiff sets out that he agreed with the defendant to pay her the sum of $10,000 for the brewery of her late husband in Dover, consisting of the land ����
