Case ID: mont_44/html/0305-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      MR. JUSTICE HOLLOWAY", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF IOWA CITY, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respondent.
    (No. 3,034.)
    (Submitted November 25, 1911.
    Decided December 8, 1911.)
    [119 Pac. 784.]
    
      Pleading and Practice — General Denial — Corporations—Capacity to Sue — Issues.
    1. A general denial does not raise an issue upon the question of plaintiff corporation’s capacity to sue.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Ravalli County; Henry L. Myers, Judge.
    
    Action by the First National Bank of Iowa City, Iowa, against E. E. Smith. From a judgment entered upon a directed verdict for defendant and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Statement op the Case.
    This action was brought by the First National Bank of Iowa City against E. E. Smith to recover the principal and interest on a'promissory note, executed and delivered by the defendant to the Providence Jewelry Company, and by it indorsed to the plaintiff. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was and is a corporation organized under the laws of the United States. The answer consists of a general denial of the allegations of the complaint and an affirmative defense. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s testimony, the court directed a verdict for defendant because of the failure of the plaintiff to prove its corporate existence. From the judgment entered on the verdict, and from an order denying it a new trial, the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Mr. James D. Taylor, and Mr. G. C. Arnest, for Appellant, submitted a brief, and argued the cause orally.
    
      Mr. C. S. Wagner, for Respondent, submitted a brief, and argued the cause orally.
   MR. JUSTICE HOLLOWAY

delivered the opinion of the court.

A similar question was determined by this court in O’Donnell v. City of Butte, ante, p. 97, 119 Pac. 281, and upon the authority of that case we hold that the general denial in defendant’s answer does not raise an issue upon the question of plaintiff’s capacity to sue, and that the trial court erred in directing a verdict. The judgment and order are reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Smith concur.