Case Name: Manny & Co. v. French
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1867-10-22
Citations: 23 Iowa 250
Docket Number: 
Parties: Manny & Co. v. French.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 250–252

Head Matter:
Manny & Co. v. French.
Pleading: denial op knowledge or information. A denial in an answer, of any information sufficient to form a belief as to tlie truth of matters alleged in the petition, raises no issue, under section 2880 of the Revision. The denial must he of any knowledge as well as of any information.
Appeal from Black Ha/wk District Court.
Tuesday, October 22.
Suit on a negotiable promissory note, by the indorsee against the maker. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. •
A. F. Brown & B. W„ Boor for the appellant.
Powers <& Hennessy for the appellee.

Opinion:
Cole, J.
The petition is in the usual form. It avers the execution of the note by the defendant to the payee; that the payee for a valuable consideration duly indorsed and transferred the note to and that the same was, less a specified credit, due and unpaid. A copy of the note and indorsement is given. The petition was sworn to.
The defendant filed his answer in three counts, first admitting the execution of' the note as stated; second, " and whether the said petitioner is the owner of said note he has not sufficient information to* form a belief, therefore he cannot admit or deny the same." Third, the answer claimed set-off as to a part of the note. The answer was sworn to.
The plaintiff admitted the set-off as pleaded, and moved for judgment on the pleadings for the balance. The defendant resisted the motion and claimed the right to have the cause tried-by a jury. The court sustained the motion and rendered judgment accordingly. The defendant assigns this action as error.
There was no error in the action of'the court. Our Code provides (Rev. § 2880) that the answer shall con tain, " second, a general denial of each allegation of the petition, or else of any knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief
The second count of the answer, fails to make any issue to be tried by a jury or otherwise, for the reason, that it does not- deny that defendant has knowledge but only that he has not information sufficient to form a belief; the Code requires both, and the answer contains but one. See Ketcham v. Lyerega, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 553; Edwards v. Lent, 8 How. Pr. 28; Elton v. Markam, 20 Barb. 343; Smith v. Greenin, 2 Sandf. S. C. 702
Our system of pleading is.essentially a fact system; it is furthermore a system adapted only to substantial issues, and cannot propei'ly or successfully be. diverted to sham defenses.
Affirmed.