Cowing v. Peterson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action before a justice of the peace upon a written contract for the purchase of twine, made and signed by the defendant. The answer denied each and every allegation of the complaint. Plaintiff having offered the contract in evidence, it was objected to on the ground that there was no proof of its execution. The objection was overruled.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action before a justice of the peace upon a written contract for the purchase of twine, made and signed by the defendant. The answer denied each and every allegation of the complaint. Plaintiff having offered the contract in evidence, it was objected to on the ground that there was no proof of its execution. The objection was overruled. Judgment having been rendered for plaintiff, the defendant appealed upon questions of law to the district court for Douglas county, where the judgment was affirmed by Baxter, J. Defendant appeals from the judgment of the district court.
1Opinion of the Court
Gileillan, O. J.
The action was on a contract alleged by the complaint to have been in writing. The answer was a general denial, *131and was verified by the defendant. On the trial the court, against defendant’s objection that the execution had not been proved, admitted the contract in evidence without proof of execution. This raises the only question that needs to be specifically considered. The majority of the court are of opinion that, where a pleading alleges the execution of a written contract upon which the cause of action, defence, or counterclaim set forth is based, a general denial in the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Bausman v. Credit Guarantee Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Lowry v. MayoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. DoucetteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Citizens State Bank v. WebsterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Burr v. CrichtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892