Lautenschlager v. Hunter
| Decision Date | 13 November 1875 |
| Citation | 22 Minn. 267 |
| Parties | GEORGE LAUTENSCHLAGER <I>vs.</I> JOHN C. HUNTER. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
H. N. Setzer, for appellant.
J. D. Ensign, for respondent.
This is an action to recover a balance due on a building contract, and also to recover for extra labor and materials on the building beyond that called for in the original contract. As to the extra labor and materials, the complaint alleges that they were extra, that defendant requested plaintiff to furnish and perform them, and promised to pay what the same should be reasonably worth, and the value of them. The answer as to the extra labor and material, so far as it affects the questions raised here, was a general denial, except as to $300.00 in amount. The building contract was in writing, and provided for the doing of the work in accordance with plans and specifications referred to in it, and also in writing. To the instrument containing the plans and specifications were appended several stipulations, one of which provided, in effect, that the charge for extra work and material, made necessary by any alteration in the building, should be adjusted by the architect, and that his decision should be final.
On the trial the plaintiff offered the original contract and plans and specifications "for the sole purpose of showing what was extra work," and they were admitted for that purpose only. The defendant claims that the evidence could not be received with a limitation of its effect to a particular issue or fact, but that, being admitted, it was in evidence generally, and established all the facts which it was competent to prove, and that, consequently, it showed a contract that the rate of compensation for the extra work should be determined by the architect, from whose decision there could be no appeal.
If it be true that the contract, plans and specifications were evidence generally in the case, still they were not evidence of any fact not within the issues made by the pleadings. Under a denial the defendant may, of course, introduce any evidence which will disprove the facts upon which plaintiff relies to recover, and which are thus denied. But under such an issue no evidence of new matter can be offered to avoid the legal effect or operation of such facts.
In this case the facts which it was necessary for plaintiff to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reishus-Remer Land Company v. Benner
...-- a general denial. If defendant intended to rely upon that defense, he should have pleaded it. It was held in the case of Lautenschlager v. Hunter, 22 Minn. 267 -- an to recover the reasonable value of work and labor -- that the defense that the labor was performed under an express contra......
-
St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Bradbury
...was similar to that specifically mentioned in the contract, and hence covered by it. The defendants, upon the authority of Lautenschlager v. Hunter, 22 Minn. 267, make the point that plaintiff could not avail itself of provisions of the contract to exclude the evidence referred to in the fi......
-
Register Printing Co. v. Willis
...recover. That there was an express contract as to price would not tend to disprove any of the allegations of the complaint. Lautenschlager v. Hunter, 22 Minn. 267. by their answer, elected to rest their defense upon an issue as to the reasonable value of the services, and must abide by it. ......
-
Iselin v. Simon
...or operation of such facts. A general denial goes to the facts alleged, and not to the liability arising from those facts. Lautenschlager v. Hunter, 22 Minn. 267; Register Printing Co. v. Willis, 57 Minn. 93, N.W. 825. The allegations of fact in this case which were in issue by the denial w......