Minnesota Supreme Court, 1886

Cowing v. Peterson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 6, 1886 · Gileillan

36 Minn. 130; 30 N.W. 461; 1886 Minn. LEXIS 257 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Nelson, Reynolds é Treat, for appellant., Clapp, Woodard é Cowie, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1930, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Citizens State Bank v. Webster (Minn. 1930)
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Doucette (Minn. 1895)
Burr v. Crichton (Minn. 1892)
Bausman v. Credit Guarantee Co. (Minn. 1891)
Lowry v. Mayo (Minn. 1889)

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

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 opposite pleading, though it be verified, is not a denial of the signature or execution under oath or affidavit, such as is contemplated by Gen. St. 1878, c. 73, § 89; but the denial must be specific, in order to make proof of the execution necessary at the trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.