"The objection that an action is prematurely brought is a mere matter of abatement, and should be taken by demurrer if it so appears upon the face of the complaint, otherwise by answer before pleading to the merits, or it is waived." See also 1 Ency. Pl. Pr. 22, 32; Moore v. Sargent, 112 Ind. 484, 14 N.E. 466 (involving an acceleration clause similar to that involved in the case at bar); Railway Co. v. Stevenson, 6 Ind. App. 207, 33 N.E. 254. In a number of states a plea of abatement must be filed separately from that of a plea in bar, and the two pleas are sharply distinguished.

In the very early case of Southern Pacific Co. v. Tomlinson, 4 Ariz. 126, 33 P. 710, the court ordered a remittitur because it appeared the jury had adopted a too liberal view of the damages, and the rule there announced has been followed since. Gila Valley etc. Ry. Co. v. Hall, 13 Ariz. 270, 112 P. 845; Verde etc. Ry. Co. v. Stevenson, 22 Ariz. 188, 196 P. 164. It might have been through a misconception of the legal effect of the evidence, or it might have been through sympathy, but it seems certain the jury was extremely liberal in assessing damages, especially so when it appears that one of the plaintiffs has shown himself entitled to little more than nominal damages. As to the punitive damages, we do not think them too large, nor do we think them unjustified by the facts.