Comstock Castle Stove Co. v. Galland
Comstock Castle Stove Co. v. Galland
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff in error commenced this action against defendant in error to recover $972.89, the amount due on four promissory notes. The defendant’s answer contained, first, a plea of payment; second, a claim of surety and an avoidance ; third, a general denial.
The plaintiff denied the first and demurred to the second cause of defense. The demurrer was overruled and plaintiff replied.
We cannot agree with counsel for plaintiff in error. This action was commenced to recover upon four promissory notes. In the absence of defendant, judgment could have been taken against him without further proof on the part of the plaintiff. From the nature of the answer, it is clear that evidence other than that of the defendant would be necessary to establish his defense.
Can it be said that in an action to recover upon a note, where an answer is filed, a defense stated, and thereupon plaintiff replies, the trial court is required, in the absence of the plaintiff on the trial, to dismiss the case over the objection of defendant? If this is the practice, a plaintiff may commence his case and have it dismissed by the court from time to time until such time as the defendant fails to appear, or his evidence is lost, and then take judgment.
Upon the facts as they appear in the record, there was no violation of paragraph 4493, General Statutes of 1889, which provides that “ an action may be dismissed by the court, where the plaintiff fails to appear on the trial.”
The cause of defense arises out of the transaction set forth in the petition as the foundation of plaintiff’s claim. It is connected with the subject of the action, existed at the time the action was commenced, and sufficient facts are set forth to constitute a defense.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.