Moen v. Eldred
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis. The action was for nine days’ services at the agreed price of $1.50 per day, the complaint also alleging that such services were reasonably worth that sum per day. The defence was the general denial stated in the opinion, and facts claimed to constitute a special contract, and a breach of such contract by plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis. The action was for nine days’ services at the agreed price of $1.50 per day, the complaint also alleging that such services were reasonably worth that sum per day. The defence was the general denial stated in the opinion, and facts claimed to constitute a special contract, and a breach of such contract by plaintiff. A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings was granted, judgment was entered, and defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
The answer in this case commences as follows: “ The defendant, * * * for answer to plaintiff’s complaint, * * * respectfully states and shows to this *539court that he denies each and every allegation in said plaintiff’s complaint contained,” etc. As to the sufficiency of this mode of denial the courts differ. See Blake v. Eldred, 18 How. Pr. 240; Powers v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 3 Hun, 285 ; People v. Christopher, 4 Hun, 805 ; Chapman v. Chapman, 34 How. Pr. 281; Espinosa v. Gregory, 40 Cal. 58 ; Munn v. Taulman, 1 Kans. 254; see, also, Moak’s Van Santvoord, 526, note 3.
We think the form of answer…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- De Espinosa v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Munn v. TaulmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1862
- Blake v. EldredNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Chapman v. ChapmanNew York Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by2 opinions
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. DoucetteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Clark v. DillonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1882