Case Name: Lee, respondent, v. Hudson, appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1868-12
Citations: 1 Mont. 84
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lee, respondent, v. Hudson, appellant.
Judges: Knowles, J., concurred.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
Lee, respondent, v. Hudson, appellant.
PT.mATrrrm — complaint. The allegation of the release of a debt due the plaintiff is sufficiently set forth in the complaint in this case.
Appeal from the Third District, Lewis and Olarke County.
On September 16, 1868, Lee filed his complaint in the justices’ court of Lewis and Clarke county, A. J. Edwards, Esq., justice, and alleged:
“That, on or about the 25 th day of August, A. D. 1868, one James Allen was indebted unto the said plaintiff in the sum of $125; that the above-named defendant, on the day aforesaid, was indebted to the said Allen in a sum of money greater than that due from said Allen to this plaintiff; that, at the special instance and request of said defendant, this plaintiff agreed to take the said defendant for the payment of the said sum due from the said Allen to this plaintiff, and to accept of his promise to pay the said sum in satisfaction of said debt; that this plaintiff did then and there so take and accept of the said defendant’s promise and liability, and the said Allen then .and there released said defendant from his liability to him the said Allen, to the extent and amount of this plaintiff’s claim, to wit: the sum of $125, whereby the said defendant became liable to pay this plaintiff the said sum of $125 ; and on the 1st day of September, A. D. 1868, did pay this plaintiff upon said sum the sum of $75, leaving a balance due and unpaid from the said defendant to the said plaintiff, at the time of the commencement of this suit, and is now due and unpaid.”
The case was appealed to the district court, and tried in October, 1868. After the plaintiff closed his testimony, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, upon the following grounds: That plaintiff’s complaint contained no allegation that the original debt, due from Allen to plaintiff, was ever canceled, or that Allen was released from his debt to plaintiff at the time of the transaction specified in the complaint. The court, Knowles, J., denied the motion, and defendant excepted.
J. A. Johnston, for appellant.
Chuhasero & Chadwick, for respondent.
No briefs on file in this case.

Opinion:
Warren, C. J.
The release of the old debt, due from Allen to the plaintiff, is sufficiently alleged in the complaint.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Exceptions overruled.
Knowles, J., concurred.