McCormick Harvesting Machine Company v. Doucette
| Decision Date | 06 May 1895 |
| Docket Number | 9301--(84) |
| Citation | 63 N.W. 95,61 Minn. 40 |
| Parties | McCORMICK HARVESTING MACHINE COMPANY v. JOSEPH DOUCETTE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Morrison county, Baxter, J., denying a motion for a new trial. The case was tried without a jury and the court ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $ 246.10. Reversed.
Order reversed.
Taylor Calhoun & Rhodes, for appellant.
Lindbergh Blanchard & Lindbergh and E. P. Adams, for respondent.
The complaint is upon a promissory note, alleging that the defendant made the note. The answer, so far as here material is as follows: "Answering the complaint * * * defendant shows to the court and alleges: First, that he denies each and every allegation, and each and every part of each and every allegation in the said complaint contained; second, that he expressly denies that he either signed, or caused to be signed, the note described in said complaint." It did not contain any allegations stated upon information and belief, and was verified by the defendant that it was true of his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters he believed it to be true. On the trial the plaintiff introduced the note in evidence, without objection, and rested. The defendant was then sworn as a witness on his own behalf, and asked if he ever signed or authorized any one to sign the note for him; also, if the signature to the note was his. Plaintiff objected, on the ground that such evidence was inadmissible under the pleadings, for the reason that the defendant had not denied the signature or execution of the note by his oath or affidavit, pursuant to G. S. 1894, § 5751. The objection was sustained, and defendant duly excepted to the ruling, and rested his case. From an order denying his motion for a new trial the defendant appeals.
Assuming without so deciding, that the special denial in the answer of the defendant was not sufficient under this statute, because verified on information and belief, to put the plaintiff to the proof of the execution of the note before it could be introduced in evidence, still the answer was good as a pleading. Moen v. Eldred, 22 Minn. 538. The execution of the note by the defendant was in issue, but, by reason of his failure to comply with the statute as to denying his signature or the execution of the note by his oath or affidavit, the plaintiff was entitled to and did put the note in evidence, without being required to first prove its execution. This statute is not a rule of pleading, but one of evidence, and the only effect of the defendant's failure to comply with it was that he took upon himself the burden of the issue as to the execution of the note. When the plaintiff produced the note, purporting to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial