What is the Proper Order of Pleadings?

Question

In Corpus Juris (1914 edition, volume 49, §266) it enumerates the logical order of pleadings.
1. To the jurisdiction of the court.
2. To the disability of the person.
3. To the count or declaration.
4. To the writ.
5. To the accusation itself in bar thereof.
Each one of these presupposes, and therefore waves the right to challenge, all those preceding it.
I understand the logical order of the first two, but the last three seem as if they are all referring to the merits of the case (declaration, writ, accusation…).
1) What is the distinction between the last three?
2) Where do abatements fit in? I would think they should be number one.
3) What order should jurisdictional challenges (in personam, geographic, & subject-matter) be in?

Answer 1

Proper order depends on the rulse of the relevant court and jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional challenges can be made in any order, but subject-matter jurisdiction are generally the easiest to prove and the most determinative of whether any further analysis is necessary.

The count or declaration is the cause of action, and possibly the allegation of facts supporting that cause of action. The writ refers to the remedy sought for that cause of action. I don't know #5, by an educated guess would be the surrounding facts, which would be used to defeat any potential affirmative defenses.

Abatements could refer to one of two things, cessation of unwanted activity (abatement of a tresspass or nuisance), or reduction in the amount of an prior award. But as currently used, the term has nothing to do with most modern pleadings.

The reference you are using is very old, and not the way most courts that I am familiar with (US) still handle pleadings. But this may come from some other country, in which case the above is just an educated guess.