Garretson v. Bitzer
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Muscatine Circuit Court. The plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of three hundred dollars, and alleges as a ground of such claim that he sold and conveyed to the defendant certain real estate for the consideration of two thousaud dollars, and that there is due and owing to the plaintiff on account of said sale the sum of three hundred dollars.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Muscatine Circuit Court. The plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of three hundred dollars, and alleges as a ground of such claim that he sold and conveyed to the defendant certain real estate for the consideration of two thousaud dollars, and that there is due and owing to the plaintiff on account of said sale the sum of three hundred dollars. The defendant filed an answer denying that there is due and owing to the plaintiff the sum of three hundred dollars, or any other sum, on account of said contract and sale, and alleging “ that the original agreement between said…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
„ 1. ETODE5T Of tract-:pleadUlg’ I. In determining the case the court held that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, and that he must fail because he had failed to establish the facts essential to bis recovery by a preponderance of evidence. It is insisted that in this ruling the court erred. It is claimed that the answer of the defendant *471is in the nature of a confession and avoidance, and that the burden of proof is upon the defendant to establish payment in full as alleged in the answer. It is to be observed, however, that the defendant does not admit in his answer that he agreed to…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Conkling v. . WeatherwaxNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Williams v. DeanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Howerton v. AugustineSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Brenton Bros. & Leach v. HillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- D. H. Baldwin & Co. v. MoserSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.