Ramsey v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 19 April 1898 |
| Parties | RAMSEY v. JOHNSON |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Commenced in district court, March 18, 1895.
ERROR to the District Court for Sweetwater County, HON. JESSE KNIGHT, Judge.
Ellen C. Johnson brought the action against Robert Ramsey upon a lease dated Dec. 11, 1893, made between said Ramsey and William A. Johnson. The plaintiff alleged an assignment from William A. Johnson of the claim sued for. The lease was alleged to cover ranch property, and that defendant's personal property on the ranch was, under the lease, to be held as security for the fulfillment of the conditions of the lease, and that such property consisted of horses, cattle wagons, farming implements, household furniture, and hay. The petition alleged defendant's insolvency, and a receiver was appointed in the action to take charge of the property claimed under the lien of the lease; and he reported having reduced to his possession, one mower, one rake, and one plow. A demurrer was interposed to the petition, and overruled. Subsequently an answer was filed containing a general denial. The evidence is not in the record; but the cause was tried to the court, and the following were the findings: "On this day this cause came on to be heard upon the petition of the plaintiff and answer of defendant, Robert Ramsey filed herein, and the cause being submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, the court, after hearing the evidence, finds that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $ 367.20, principal debt and interest, that by the terms of agreement of lease the personal property and improvements belonging to the defendant at time of the forfeiture of lease, to wit: the 1st day of January, 1895, on the premises were to be held as security for the fulfillment of the conditions of said lease--the court finds that at the time of forfeiture of lease herein to wit: on the 1st of January, 1895, there was personal property on the premises described in said agreement of lease, belonging to the defendant, as follows: Seventy head of cattle, one mower, two wagons, one plow, one roller, one rake, and two stoves, and that said agreement of lease as aforesaid is now and was a lien upon the aforesaid property at the time of the forfeiture of the lease aforesaid for the purpose of security for the payment of said sum of $ 367.20."
The court thereupon rendered judgment for said amount found to be due, and declared the same a lien upon the property therein described as above. The defendant prosecuted error.
In the opinion of the court, the facts were stated as follows: This was an action for the recovery of money due upon a lease, and for the foreclosure of a lien. There was a demurrer to the petition upon the ground that it did not state sufficient facts, and it is also claimed by the plaintiff in error that the findings of the court are not sufficient to support the judgment. The petition alleges, in substance, that the defendant entered into a written lease with one William A Johnson whereby he leased from Johnson a certain described tract of land for the term of seven years, at a rental of $ 360 per year, payable annually in advance; that defendant took and still retains possession of the premises, and that on January 1, 1895, the rent for the year beginning on that date, amounting to $ 360, became due; and that no part of the same has been paid. Sets out an assignment of the lease to the plaintiff (defendant in error), and alleges that by the terms of the lease there was a lien upon certain personal property upon the premises, and belonging to the defendant, to secure the payment of the sum claimed to be due. Asks for judgment for the amount, and a foreclosure of the lien. The evidence is not brought up, and all the questions presented have reference to the sufficiency of the pleadings, and the findings of the court.
Judgment affirmed.
E. E. Enterline and D. A. Reavill, for plaintiff in error.
A legal conclusion when pleaded can not supply an insufficient statement of facts. (Bliss Code Pl., Secs. 210 and 418.) The failure to allege an agreement on the part of defendant to pay rent, and to allege non-payment, renders the petition bad on demurrer. (Du Brutz v. Jessup, 70 Cal. 75; Bliss Code Pl., Sec. 357.) Each cause of action must be complete in itself. The reference in the second cause of action to the agreement set out in the first is not permissible. (Bliss Code Pl., Sec. 121; Pomeroy Code Rem., Sec. 422.) Although it would have been proper for plaintiff to have embodied the allegations and sought the relief asked for in one cause of action, it was also proper to plead them in two causes of action. (Whit. Ann. Code, Sec. 5021; 1 Bates Pl. and Pr., 309 and 575; 1 Yaple Code Pr., 309; 1 Kinkead Pl., 558, 559; Potter v. Hussey, 1 Utah, 249; Brugman v. McQuire, 32 Ark. 733.) But, even considered as one cause of action the petition is fatally defective for three reasons: 1. Failure to allege a consideration. 2. Failure to allege a promise to pay rent. 3. Failure to allege a breach of contract. An exhibit is no part of the petition. Hartford Ins. Co. v. Kahn, 4 Wyo. 364. The findings of a court must be responsive to the issues, and the judgment must be warranted by the pleadings. Where there are special findings, they must support the judgment. Findings of fact merely announcing legal conclusions deducible from facts not stated are not sufficient to support a judgment; all the facts essential to a recovery must be stated in special findings. When the findings are silent respecting a material fact, it is taken as formed against the party upon whom the burden rested of proving it.
John H. Chiles, for defendant in error. (John F. Mail and David G. Thomas, of counsel.)
Although separately stated and numbered, there was but one cause of action stated in the petition. .) If the petition states all material allegations, an exhibit may be resorted to to fix accurately and definitely their import. (State v. School District, 34 Kan. 237; Pefley v. Johnson, 30 Neb. 529; Grimes v. Cullison, 3 Okl., 270; Ward v. Clay, 82 Cal. 502; Walburn v. Chanault, 43 Kan. 352; City of Nauvoo v. Ritter, 97 U.S. 391.)
The decisions of this court do not announce a contrary rule, as we understand them, in 3 Wyo. 140, and 4 Wyo. 364.) Writings under seal import a consideration, hence it was not necessary to allege a consideration. A consideration, however, is alleged. The word "consideration" need not be employed. It is only necessary, as regards a promise, to allege those facts from which a promise may be inferred. The findings support the judgment, and are responsive to the issues.
The issues formed by the pleadings were: Is the defendant indebted to plaintiff in any sum, and if so, did plaintiff have a lien upon certain property to secure the payment of that sum? The court found that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of three hundred and sixty-seven dollars and twenty cents, and that the plaintiff had a lien upon certain property to secure the payment of that sum, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendant for that sum, and adjudged that sum a lien upon said property, or rather, that the plaintiff had a lien upon that property to secure the payment of that sum. In the absence of the evidence the findings are presumptively correct. Objections to the findings can not be raised for the first time on appeal. The only question in the absence of exceptions is, do the findings support the judgment? (Ashmead v. Reynolds, 134 Ind. 139; Seibel v. Bath, supra.
CORN, JUSTICE (after stating the facts).
The plaintiff in error maintains that his demurrer should be sustained, because there is no specific allegation that the defendant promised to pay, or of the consideration upon which the promise was made. It is true that a recovery must be had if at all, upon the promise of the defendant, and that a consideration is necessary to sustain the promise, and that both must be shown by the allegations of the petition. But no prescribed form of words is required; and it is not necessary that either the word "promise," or the word "consideration," should occur in the pleading. The allegation that the defendant leased the premises for a certain term at a certain yearly rental to be paid annually in advance, is a statement of facts from which a promise to pay not only may be, but must be, inferred. And this,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holt v. City of Cheyenne
...not separately stated and numbered must be raised by motion and not by demurrer. (Kearney Stone Wks. v. McPherson, 5 Wyo. 178; Ramsey v. Johnson, 7 Wyo. 392; Miskimmons v. Moore, 10 Wyo. 41). One cause action only is stated in the petition. (1 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 159, 161). There is no necessit......
-
First Savings Bank of Pocatello v. Sherman
... ... allegations may be incorporated into a subsequent cause of ... action, by proper reference, without repetition. (Ramsey ... v. Johnson, 7 Wyo. 392, 52 P. 1084; Sly v. Palo Alto ... G. M. Co., 28 Wash. 485, 68 P. 871; Realty Avenue ... Guaranty Co. v. Farm S. & H. P ... ...
-
Bishop v. Hawley
...also a conclusion of law, that is not material, in the absence of a request for separate findings of law and fact. Ramsey v. Johnson, 7 Wyo. 392, 52 P. 1084. As find nothing in the decree to contradict the trial court's finding as to the width of the road, the judgment will be affirmed. Aff......
-
Ramsey v. Johnson
...P. 755 8 Wyo. 476 RAMSEY v. JOHNSON Supreme Court of WyomingNovember 4, 1899 For former opinion, see 52 P. 1084. petition for rehearing. The original hearing reported, 7 Wyo. 392. Rehearing denied. E. E. Enterline, and D. A. Reavill, for the plaintiff in error. The petition failing to alleg......