The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-07-04
AN ILLUSTRA-::
The Beautiful Science

with the complications, II calities
and absurdities of the old 4S fish sys-
tenn Of practice, used in - courts,
that they threw it O, IS ird and
adopted New Code. I X great
reformation. 1t was = led that
law should be made simpe Justice; the
pleadings were to be pl in statement
OF the case in homely language, that
any one could unders Ind; and the
answer should be the same. Under
the English system if 4 owed and b
sued A, B threw a dag net over all
possible causes why A might be in
debt to him; and A A/replied,-"Non-as-
sumpst, payment, Set off. with leave
to add, alter and amend" Which,
translated into human speech. meant:
l. l never agreed to pay him any
thing. 2. I paid it to him. 3. AL
though 1 never agreed to pay him any
thing, and 1 paid it, nevertheless 1
have ''set-off'' against what l owe
him in something he owes me. 4.
And besides all this l have a hundred
other good and legal defences, which 1
will produce when the time comes,
against the claim which never owed,
but paid!
And all this absurd stuff had the
sanction of centuries. If we knew that
a breed of monkeys settled their dis
putes in such nonsensical way as
that the philosophers would repudiate
the Darwinian theory. There is no
parallel for such pleading except the
defence made by the old woman when,
sued for borrowed pot.
l. / never had the pot.
2. l returned it.
3. 1t had hole in it when 1 got it.
4. 1t was sound when / returned it.
Minnesota and most of the states
adopted the New Code, and thought
that they had reached the end of
finesse, technicality and trickery, and
that the reign of simple justice had
begun, and lawyers were to be elimin-
ated. Alas! They did not know the
nature of judges, or the capacities of
the legal intellect. The result is that
the New Code is now as complicated,
as involuted, as unnatural and as un-
reasonable as ever the old one was.
Justice has withdrawn. She is now
sitting on top of the court house,
picking the dirt of the bar out of her
pen feathers, preparatory to taking
flight and leaving the affairs of men
forever.
Here is specimen or the way this
thing goes:
The Walter A. Wood Harvester Company.
O. acorporation. respondent, VS.. Rufus G. JET
ferson and James Kasson. appellants Or
der reversed. COLLINS, j.
Where in an action brought to re-
cover the full amount due upon a
stock subscription agreement, or a
final payment when the amount is to
be paid in inStallmentS, it is alleged in
the complaint, that after signing the
agreement defendant subscribers de-
livered it to plaintiff corporation, and
the latter then and there accepted
the subscription and agreed to deliver
the shares subscribed for to the form
er when paid for. it is also necessary
to allege readiness and willingness
on the part of the plaintiff to deliver
the stock certificates.
Let us look at this:
A party agrees to take a certain
amount of stock and pay for it. He
fails to do so. The company sues him
for the amount due. The defendant
does not come in and allege that the
plaintiff will not give him the stock if
he pays up. That is what the plaintiff
is suing for It has plenty of stock
but not plenty of money. If it had
been true that there was refusal to
deliver the stock that should have
been set up in the answer. But there
was none. The defendant goes into
court and says: "True it is we owe
this money for stock; true it is the
plaintiff is anxious to exchange his
stock for our money; but he has failed
to say so in his complaints: therefore
we demand judgment"
And the wise supreme court cocks
it's oracular eye into the cobwebs left
over by ages of litigation: looks as
solemn as two hundred boiled owls,
and says:
."The Woods Harvester Co. came here
to St. Paul, under promise Of certain
subscriptions of money, for which
they were to give certain pieces of
printed paper: called stock. Now it is
morally certain they would be willing
to exchange a million dollars of that
stock for the same amount of money;
but these defendants are trying to get
out of their promise, to pay few hun
dred dollars, by nasty little trick;
and while every human probability is
against the company refusing to de-
deliver that stock, if the money was
paid, yet there is the one-billionth
part of the trillionth part of a single
chance, that, just when that money
was offered them, the whole Board of
Managers might be stricken with in
sanity, and refuse to take it and de-
liver the stock. Therefore the great
state of Minnesota, the wise, the
righteous state of Minnesota, Q5O, ,OOO,-
900 persons), settles down on that dim
possibility, like black bird on a June
bug, and kicks the plaintiff out of
COURT"
And this is law and justice, (God
save the mark! in the 10th century, in
the United States Of America.
We need another New Code that
will put an end to such stuff!
Why didn't the Court say: 1.-THE
defendant must pay the money: but,
if there is any question about getting
his stock, let him pay it into court,
and Lot tho Chnriff dalivar Ii To Mai n