Case ID: sd_34/html/0296-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WHITING, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BICKFORD, Respondent, v. COOLEY, Appellant.
    (148 N. W. 505.)
    1* Parties — Substitution—Purchaser of Plaintiff's Claim.
    In an. action on a claim, an order of circuit court substituting as .plaintiff a purchaser of original plaintiff’s claim was proper.
    2. Parties — Substitution—Amendment of Pleading — Counter Claim, Against Original Plaintiff.
    In an action on a claim, in which defendant plead no counterclaim, an order, upon substitution of purchaser of the claim as party plaintiff, allowing him to amend the complaint as it could have been -amended before -the substitution, was proper, as against an objection that it debarred defendant from pleading a counterclaim against original plaintiff.
    Smith and McCoy, J. J., taking no part herein.
    (Opinion filed July 25, 1914.)
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Roberts County. Hon. FRANK McNulty, Judge.
    Action -by Moses- Bickford against Mary E. 'Cooley, to recover for breach -of a contract of lease of land, in which W. E. Bickford was substituted- as party plaintiff. From, a judgment for -plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    /. /. Batterton, for Appellant.
    
      C. R. Jorgenson, for Respondent.
    (1) Under point one of the opinion, Respondent -cited:
    Vo-1. 20 '¡A. & E. Ency. (2nd Ed.) P. & P. p. 1034; Sykes v. Beck, 12 N. D. 242; 20 A. & E. Ency. -of P. & P. ,p. 1048.'
    (2) Under point two of the opinion, Appellant cited-:
    C. C. P., Section 81; 17 A. & E. E. E. 556; Snyder v. Philips, 66 Iowa, 481, 24 N! W. 6.
   WHITING, J.

One Moses Bickford brought this action in ■circuit court. Against his cause of action the defendant set up several defenses-, but pleaded no -counterclaim. W. E. Bickford, having purchased from- Moses Bickford his claim against the defendants, was, by order of the circuit court, substituted a-s party plaintiff. Said court also made an order allowing 'such substituted plaintiff, to file an amended complaint. Defendants excepted to the granting of the two orders above mentioned. The defendant, Mary B. 'Cooley filed an amended answer in which she pleaded, as a counterclaim against W. E. Bickford, a cause of action which she claimed to have against the original plaintiff. Judgment upon trial was in favor of plaintiff against the defendant Mary E. Cooley, and from such judgment she has. appealed and has assigned as error the granting of each of the above orders.

There is no merit in appellant’s assignments. The amendment of the complaint is clearly one that the trial court should have allowed if there had been no substitution of new party plaintiff. Appellant complains that by the substitution of the new party plaintiff she was prevented from establishing her counterclaim existing against the original plaintiff. There would -be some merit in appellant’s contention, if, at the time the order for substitution was made, the answer then interposed had set up a counterclaim. Defendant had pleaded no counterclaim and in no manner presented to the trial court, in resistence of the motion for substitution, any claim that she had any counterclaim against plaintiff; in fact, the printed record does not show that the objection interposed stated any grounds whatsoever for such objection.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Judges SMITH and McOOY taking no part herein.