Bowe v. Minnesota Milk Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Kerr, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict of $141.25 for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The defendant’s main contention in the court below was, and his sole contention here is, that this action was barred by a former recovery. The defence of a bar by a former judgment, be'ing in the nature of a confession and avoidance, is “new matter,” within the meaning of the Code, and must be specially pleaded. No such defence was set up in the answer, but the record shows that both parties tried the cause, and allowed it to be submitted to the jury, upon the theory that this was an issue in the case; and, in accordance with our repeated decisions, they must be deemed to have •consented to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Tuskaloosa Scientific & Art Ass'n v. GreenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1872
3Cited by21 opinions
- Okmulgee Window Glass Co. v. FrinkCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1918
- Swank v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Kopio's, Inc. v. Bridgeman Creameries, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Kalichoff v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Hodge v. ShawSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.