The Minnesotian. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1851-1852, 1851-12-27

conforming the pleadingS ana proceedings
in civil actions to those in chancery, anv
farther than it has been expressly done bv
the legislature. And under the New
York cole. most of which we have bar
rowed, and which applies to suits in
equity as well as at law, it has been re-
peated'y held, that at any rate, in those
actions where equitable relief is no,
sought, the p!eadings are to be governed
by common law principles, except where
different ru'e is prescribed by statute.
Glenny VS.. Kitchens. 4, Pr. Rep. 50;
Shaw VS.. Jayne, id, ll9; Knowles vs..
Gee. id, 3l7; Russell VS.. Clapp, i'll, BAT /;
McMurray w. Clifford. 5, id. II ; Car
pentcr VS.. West. id, So; Williams VS..
Hays, id, 40; Bryce VS.. Brown, Bar
bours S.. G.. Rep. SO, IS; cade Rep. 80 ;
il, 25o. l5S; DAlln.r vs.. Gibson, 3
Code Rep. 1853.
1t follows, that in examining the an wers
under consideration. for the purpose of
determining what parts if any. are irreie-
want or redundant, we must have recourse
mainly TO the principles OF pleading rccog-
nized by the common law, rather than to
modes adopted by equity courts. Mo-
lions to strike ont irrelevant or redundant
matter, however, being a method of ras-
ing md dispoSing OF objections TO the
pleadings in certain cases, common in
chancery practice, it my be can>utc to
some extent, as a gii lie in deciding such
IN 'tlon> app tic .tions to have impcrl inent
or SC tndiious m,tter expurgel, having
here o'ore been more frequent in c.urls
Of equity than OF law, and more discussed
and considered there.
In the cl>e before us. the counsel for
the de.endents, in framing their answers,
misled probably by the term answer
used in the statue, has evidently follow
ed the mole and manner of stating and
setting forth matters of deierce in chan-
Gerry, and disregardel the principles which
govern pleas at common law. This is
undoubtedly the source OF most of the err
rors into which he has fallen. Such Il
mistake was very natural before the prac-
lice had been settled. And principal
object Of these motions is, TO determine
what the practice should be.
The plaintiff in his complaint, counts
upon two notes, alleged to have been
made by the defendant Henniss and in
dorscd by the defendant Rice, for one
thousand dollars each, dated November
2o,h, 1850, and payable to O.mstcl,
"within nine months from date, or so SON
as TINT amount my be rccev ID on accoaat
Of printing, which may be done at the o.
flee OF the Minnesota Chronicle and R,g-
lister, for the next session OF the lcgi>la-
ture;' the complaint following and ;.Iop-
ting in haze rerba, the language OF that
part of the notes relating t, The time ana
mole OF payment, and explaining ii by i'll
uendoes.
The answers set forth full copies Of
the nJ.es and in iorssmcns. The fe is III
assigned for it on the argnmeni MAS, that
the court m ghi see that the notes are not
negotiable, and the dc Ell ian;s ihcreupoE
object 10 recovery by the p'aint.h OF
that ground. Bat thai "bjcc ion cod i
have been raised, rs well upon !hc State
ment OF the notes in the Complaint. as
upon the copies in the answers, ami ,hou d
have been taken by demurrer. n de-
iendant my dcmmr 10 some OF Tie can>cs
OF action in the Complaint and answc CT
others AMI ISSUES %! law AND OF fact,
my arise upon d ir:rent p.ris OF the
pleadings i'll The sam; action, r. 5. 337
sec. 62, sub. 8; id. 3D., >rc. 3; hut he
cannot at the same time, both de.nnr to
and answer The same ca,,>c o. ac ion.
Slocnm vs.. Wheeler, 4 Pr. Rep. 337 /;
Spelmn VS.. Wc;der, 5 i'd 5, EOS; 3 code
Rep. 2l5. Nor en- he evadc this rule,
by raising the qucsiio # he right OF the
plaintiff 10 recover Oh the sticmcnt o.
facts con,aine III the compliant, by re-
statement of them in HE answer along
with other deFcnces, ana OBJ cling 10
their sutiicency therenpon, AMI thus pre-
sent an issue OF Inv to the court, AM is
sues of fact to the jury at the sin; time,
upon the same cause oi action.
The defendants having waived their
right to demur by answering the COM
plant, may still object 10 lis legal suili-
cheney, Il. 5. 3337, sec. IS, but must do
SO by motion in arrest OF jnlgn.n, after
vtf lie, npon Csc reserved Or argu-
men. or further consideration. r. ). 300,
sec. 6I.-S.
The setting forth o. copies o. the notes
an in Tors smcnis in The answers. was
there ore snperiluons, ten Is 10 pro tx "
and confusion, i, inconsistent with thai
corciscness Of language, an avoidrcc OF
repetition required by the Revised Stat
utes, p. 337. SEC. IS, sub. 2, and calcula-
ted 10 disable, rather than enable per.
son OF common understanding TO know
what is intended. The copies mis- be
striker out, and the answers cleared OF
such redundant matter.
The words, las they import upon their
face" in the averment in the answers.
THAT the said promi>sory notes were
given, as they import upon their face, for
an expected benefit" though redundant,
are unimportant, and may be retained