Cate v. Gilman
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Hardin District Court. The petition alleges in substance that defendant executed to plaintiff his promissory note for $7,307.79, and when-the same matured turned out in part payment thereof a note of the Central Railroad Company of Iowa, which plaintiff received at. the price of $5,461.79, leaving a balance due from defendant of $1,846. That defendant then represented that he had a claim of the Central Railroad Company, of Iowa against a corporation known as the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hardin District Court. The petition alleges in substance that defendant executed to plaintiff his promissory note for $7,307.79, and when-the same matured turned out in part payment thereof a note of the Central Railroad Company of Iowa, which plaintiff received at. the price of $5,461.79, leaving a balance due from defendant of $1,846. That defendant then represented that he had a claim of the Central Railroad Company, of Iowa against a corporation known as the Taunton Oar Company of Massachusetts, for $1,846, for the improper construction of twenty flat cars, and requested…
1Opinion of the Court
Day, J. —
i. pleading: strike. I. We are of the 'opinion that the court, in refusing to strike out the matter assailed by plaintiff’s motion, committed no error prejudicial to him. The most that can be said of the facts stated in these paragraphs is that they aver matters which might be proved under the specific denials contained in the first paragraph, and that they are therefore unnecessary.
That this alone is .not a sufficient cause for striking out a clause in the answer, see Martin v. Swearengen, 17 Iowa, 346, cited and relied on by appellant. This is not a case where the same matter is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Martin v. SwearengenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
3Cited by2 opinions
- Johns v. PatteeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Rhodes v. Northern Traction Co.Summit County Court of Common Pleas · 1901