Davis v. Crookston Waterworks, Power & Light Co.
| Citation | 59 N.W. 482,57 Minn. 402 |
| Decision Date | 28 June 1894 |
| Docket Number | 8759 |
| Parties | E. C. Davis v. Crookston Waterworks, Power & Light Co. (Hugh Thompson, Intervener) |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Submitted on brief by appellant, argued by respondent May 18, 1894
Original Opinion of June 1, 1894, Reported at: 57 Minn. 402.
The motion for a reargument is denied.
OPINIONOn Application for Reargument.
At the commencement of the trial of this action, plaintiff was sworn in his own behalf; and after he had testified at considerable length as to the failure of the defendant to furnish the material to be by it furnished under the contract, and the length of time he was delayed thereby in completing his contract, defendant's counsel objected to any testimony showing delay caused by the defendant, for the reason that the same is not pleaded. The objection was overruled. This was overlooked in writing the opinion, as it comes after so much of the evidence of that character had been received.
Laws 1889, ch. 200, § 10, provides that "all the allegations of each answer in such action shall be deemed to be controverted, as upon a direct denial or avoidance, as the case may require, without further pleading."
This clearly applies both to the answer of the defendant to the plaintiff's complaint, and also to the answer to the intervener's complaint. The defendant set up new matter in these answers, to which the two other parties failed to reply; but under this statute they had a right to avoid this new matter by their evidence, so the objection was not well taken.
The motion for a reargument is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial