Manny & Co. v. French
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- O'Neal v. City of Sherman (Tex. 1890)
- Leyner v. Fuller (Iowa 1885)
- Clark v. Dillon (New York Court of Common Pleas 1882)
- Claflin v. Reese (Iowa 1880)
- Cutler & Parker v. McCormick, Hall & Porter (Iowa 1878)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant filed his answer in three counts, first admitting the execution of' the note as stated; second, “ and whether the said petitioner is the owner of said note he has not sufficient information to* form a belief, therefore he cannot admit or deny the same.” Third, the answer claimed set-off as to a part of the note. The answer was sworn to.
The plaintiff admitted the set-off as pleaded, and moved for judgment on the pleadings for the balance. The defendant resisted the motion and claimed the right to have the cause tried-by a jury. The court sustained the motion and rendered judgment accordingly. The defendant assigns this action as error.
■There was no error in the action of'the court. Our Code provides (Rev. § 2880) that the answer shall con
The second count of the answer, fails to make any issue to be tried by a jury or otherwise, for the reason, that it does not- deny that defendant has knowledge but only that he has not information sufficient to form a belief; the Code requires both, and the answer contains but one. See Ketcham v. Lyerega, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 553; Edwards v. Lent, 8 How. Pr. 28; Elton v. Markam, 20 Barb. 343; Smith v. Greenin, 2 Sandf. S. C. 702
Our system of pleading is.essentially a fact system; it is furthermore a system adapted only to substantial issues, and cannot propei'ly or successfully be. diverted to sham defenses.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.