Trainor v. Worman
Decision Date | 07 November 1885 |
Citation | 34 Minn. 237 |
Parties | FELIX TRAINOR <I>vs.</I> JOHN A. WORMAN. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Edward Savage, for appellant.
T. E. Byrnes, for respondent.
Upon the argument of this case at the last April term, (Trainor v. Worman, 33 Minn. 484,) the court, acting on the decision in Mason v. Heyward, 3 Minn. 116, (182,) and other decisions of this court, following that case, held that a cause of action upon the contract set up in the complaint was admitted by the pleading of the counterclaim in the answer, and that, therefore, resort to the facts alleged in the reply was not necessary to enable plaintiff to recover, and that the departure in pleading was immaterial. Upon the filing of the opinion on that argument, the appellant applied for leave to reargue the case, calling our attention to Laws 1883, c. 101, which at the time of the prior argument had escaped our notice. Leave to reargue was granted, and the case reargued, so far, at least, as concerns the application of the statute to this case.
Section 1 of the act reads: "The pleading of a set-off or counterclaim by a defendant, in any action in any of the courts of this state, shall not be held or construed to be an admission of any cause of action on the part of the plaintiff against such defendant." The terms of this act are so full and explicit as to leave no room for doubt that it was aimed at and abrogates the rule in Mason v. Heyward. This being so, there is, so far as the allegations in the reply may be claimed to help the complaint, a clear case of departure in the pleadings; for the complaint alleges and relies on a complete performance of the contract according to its terms, while the reply admits a failure to perform as to time, and relies on new matter therein alleged as an excuse for such failure. There is a departure when a party quits or departs from the case or defence which he first made, and has recourse to another. 1 Chit. Pl. 674; Gould, Pl. c. 8, §§ 65, 66, 72; Warren v. Powers, 5 Conn. 373; Larned v. Bruce, 6 Mass. 57; Estes v. Farnham, 11 Minn. 312, (423.) A test of departure suggested in the last case is, could evidence of the facts alleged in the reply be received under the allegations of the complaint? If not, then there is a departure. It needs only a statement of it to show that an allegation of full performance will not admit proof of an excuse for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mosness v. German-American Ins. Co. of New York
...whatsoever should have been received under the defective pleading. And under the definition given in Trainor v. Worman, 34 Minn. 237, (25 N.W. 401,) there was departure, because the plaintiff could not quit or depart from a case made in the complaint, when none had been made. The point that......
-
Boon v. State Insurance Company
...of six months having passed before the action was brought; and the complaint could not be aided by such averments in reply. Trainor v. Worman, 34 Minn. 237, (25 401.) The defendant's general objections to the introduction of evidence, and particularly to the evidence offered in rebuttal, te......
-
Rosby v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry. Co.
...the allegations of the complaint by avoiding the new matter set up in the answer. Estes v. Farnham, 11 Minn. 312, (423;) Trainor v. Worman, 34 Minn. 237, (25 N. W. Rep. 401;) Johnson v. Hillstrom, ante, p. 2. It appears that the car was transported by the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Com......
-
Rosby v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company
...of the complaint by avoiding the new matter set up in the answer. Estes v. Farnham, 11 Minn. 312, (423;) Trainor v. Worman, 34 Minn. 237, (25 N.W. 401;) Johnson v. ante, p. 122. 2. It appears that the car was transported by the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company from Twin Lakes, Iowa, ......