Minnesota Supreme Court, 1888

Gaffney v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 4, 1888 · Collins

38 Minn. 111; 35 N.W. 728; 1888 Minn. LEXIS 332 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Welch, Botkin é Welch, for appellant., Benton & Roberts, 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 1944, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

Meuwissen v. H. E. Westerman Lumber Co. (Minn. 1944)

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

Collins, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district ■court for Hennepin county, made and entered pursuant to an order granting defendant’s motion for judgment upon the pleadings. After the issues in the action were fully made, the defendant, by leave of ■court, served a supplemental answer, setting forth, among other things, ¡that upon a certain day (subsequent to the service of the last pleading) it had settled and adjusted with plaintiff all claims involved in this litigation, had paid him a certain sum of money therefor, and that said plaintiff had made, executed, and delivered his receipt in full settlement of the action. To this plaintiff replied, denying a settlement ■and adjustment of “all his claim” against defendant, and averring that, “save and except in the manner and under the circumstances ■herein set forth,” he had not executed and delivered his receipt for the ¡sum named, in full settlement of the action. Further replying, the ■plaintiff sets forth at length the circumstances under which he made -the settlement, received the sum of money specified, and executed and •delivered the receipt mentioned in the supplemental answer, evidently attempting to plead fraud and deceit on the part of defendant in procuring such alleged settlement, and in obtaining said receipt. If we •can treat the first part of this reply as a denial, — and that is doubtful, *112because of its peculiar phraseology, — the subsequent admission controls and determines the real issue. Derby v. Gallup, 5 Minn. 85, (119.) See, also, Henry v. Hinman, 21 Minn. 378. The plea is confession and an effort to avoid, wherein it fails; for nearly all elements essential in pleading fraud and deceit are omitted, while some of the allegations in the reply are inconsistent with such a defence to defendant’s averments of settlement and receipting. It is well settled that all matters in confession and avoidance must be affirmatively and specially pleaded. Livingston v. Ives, 35 Minn. 55, (27 N. W. Rep. 74.) And where a plea confesses, but does not sufficiently avoid, judgment must be given upon the confession, even after verdict.. Lough v. Bragg, 18 Minn. 106, (121.)

Judgment affirmed.

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