Case ID: minn_42/html/0448-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gileillan, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

R. L. Pratt vs. W. B. Sparkman, impleaded, etc.
    February 4, 1890.
    Demurrer to part of Defence. — Rule that part of a statement of a cause of action or defence cannot be demurred to, applied.
    Action upon a promissory note, for $2,000, brought m the district court for Hennepin county against W. B. Sparkman, impleaded with the Derwood Consolidated Mining & Milling Company and others, defendants. Defendant Sparkman answered separately, admitting the execution of the note by him as secretary of the Derwood Company, of which he and the plaintiff and the other defendants were at the time directors, and alleging that each and all of the parties named signed the note as officers and directors of the corporation, and in no other capacity. This part of the answer comprised paragraphs numbered (1) to (3) inclusive. The answer proceeded: “(4) That then and there, and at the time of said alleged delivery, the said B. L. Pratt, plaintiff herein, received from said corporation twenty thousand (20,000) shares of the treasury stock of said corporation as security for the payment of said written instrument, and the indebtedness witnessed thereby.” Plaintiff demurred to that portion of the answer embraced in paragraph 4, as not constituting a defence. The demurrer was overruled by Hicks, J., and the plaintiff appealed.
    
      H. A. Sumner, for appellant.
    
      Geo. H. Vernon, for respondent.
   Gileillan, C. J.

It is evident that the part of the answer demurred to was not stated as in and of itself a defence, but that it was alleged as a part of the transaction set forth just preceding it, and not demurred.to. The fact that what precedes it is in one paragraph, and this matter in another, does not make it appear to have been set forth as an independent defence. • '

Order affirmed.