Kinney v. Miller
Decision Date | 31 October 1857 |
Parties | KINNEY, Respondent, v. MILLER et al., Appellants. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Matter set up in an answer as a counter-claim should be separately stated.
2. Where an answer improperly blends and defectively states matters set forth therein as a defense, and as a counter-claim, the proper mode of taking advantage of the defect is, not by demurrer to the whole answer, but by motion to strike out either the whole of it or such portions as are defectively pleaded.
Appeal from Stoddard Circuit Court.
This was an action on a promissory note for $350, executed by defendants. The court sustained a demurrer to the following answer:
The sustaining a demurrer to this answer constitutes the error complained of.
Noell, for appellants.
I. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the answer. The answer set up a good defense. The fact that the title to one-half the land had failed, was a sufficient ground for a rescission of the contract of sale. At all events, defendants were entitled to a recoupment of damages against the claim for the purchase money. (16 Mo. 369; Coffman v. Huck, 19 Mo. 435; 20 Mo. 496.)
According to the present practice, a demurrer will not lie to an answer except so far as it contains new matter constituting a counter-claim. The whole subject is regulated by article 6, of Practice in Criminal Cases. (R. C. 1855, p. 1226.) The only pleading on the part of the defendant is either a demurrer or an answer. (Sec. 4.) The office of a demurrer is defined in the sixth section; and the answer must contain: “ First, a special denial of each material allegation of the petition controverted by the defendant, or of any knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief; second, a statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counter-claim, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition.” (Sec. 12.) The counter-claim cannot be for any cause of controversy between the plaintiff and defendant, but “must be one existing in favor of a defendant and against a plaintiff, between whom a several judgment might be had in the action, and arising out of one of the following causes of action: First, a cause of action arising out of the contract or transaction set forth in the petition as the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, or connected with the subject of the action; second, in an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., 34288.
...or counterclaim for its so-called stand-by service in the absence of pleading as positive in its averments as a petition. Kinney v. Miller, 25 Mo. 576; Mark v. Cooperage Co., 204 Mo. 242; Lindsey v. Nagel, 157 Mo. App. 128; Hay v. Short, 49 Mo. 139; West v. Freeman, 76 Mo. App. 96; Hoffman ......
-
May Department Stores Co. v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
... ... so-called stand-by service in the absence of pleading as ... positive in its averments as a petition. Kinney v ... Miller, 25 Mo. 576; Mark v. Cooperage Co., 204 ... Mo. 242; Lindsey v. Nagel, 157 Mo.App. 128; Hay ... v. Short, 49 Mo. 139; West ... ...
-
The State ex rel. Major v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... St. 363; State ex inf. v ... Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo. 1; State ex rel. v. Insurance ... Co., 152 Mo. 40; Knight & Jilson Co. v. Miller, ... 87 N.E. 827; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 206 Mo. 28 ... (6) The charter of a private or public corporation will be ... forfeited for any ... ...
-
Lindsey v. Nagel
...Growney, 125 Mo. 474; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 526. (3) Defendants did not plead a counterclaim. Oldham v. Henderson, 4 Mo. 295; Kinney v. Miller, 25 Mo. 576; v. Heine, 37 Mo. 443; Jones v. Moore & Hickman, 42 Mo. 413; Turney v. Baker, 103 Mo.App. 390; Bliss on Code Pleadings, S. 367 and N.......