Case ID: minn_43/html/0025-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Collins, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. H. Burns and another vs. W. B. Jordan and another.
    February 18, 1890.
    Action on Note — Counterclaim for Breach of Contract — Held, that a general demurrer to the answer in this case, wherein the cause of action, viz., a past-due promissory note, was admitted, but in which was alleged a breach of contract, the only consideration for said note, was properly overruled.
    Action in the district court for Bamsey county, on a promissory note for $274.10. Plaintiffs appeal from an order by Kelly, J., overruling their demurrer to the answer.
    
      William G. White, for appellants.
    
      Thompson & Taylor, for respondents.
   Collins, J.

The answer herein, to which a general demurrer was interposed, admitted the execution and delivery of the note sued upon, and then, by way of counterclaim, alleged a breach of a contract, between plaintiffs and defendants, for the sale and delivery to the latter of certain lumber, and for which, and upon no other consideration, they executed the note in question. The answer contains several averments as to the manner in which defendants were damaged, and the amount of their loss thereby, concerning which we are not required to express an opinion. The answer sufficiently alleges a breach of the contract, and upon that alone the defendants are entitled to nominal damages. Cowley v. Davidson, 10 Minn. 314, (392;) Wilson v. Clarke, 20 Minn. 318, (367.) The demurrer was properly overruled.

Order affirmed.