Case Name: Powesheik County v. Mickel
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1859-11-08
Citations: 10 Iowa 76
Docket Number: 
Parties: Powesheik County v. Mickel.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 76–77

Head Matter:
Powesheik County v. Mickel.
1. Pleadings. A plea of payment in an action on a promissory note is not affirmative matter, and will not bo taken as true if not replied to. [Stockton, J. dissenting to tlie application of this rule to cases in which payment is the only defence set up.]
Appeal from Powcshcik District Court.
Tuesday, November 8.
The plaintiff sues on a promissory note. The defendant answered at the first term, admitting the execution of the note, but denying any indebtedness thereon to the plaintiff, and averring payment and discharge of the note at its maturity. At a subsequent term, plaintiff replied denying the plea of payment. After this, and at the same term, defendant moved for a change of venue, which was overruled and defendant appeals.
Wot. Louglvridge for the appellant.
W. J3. Cutts for the appellee.

Opinion:
Wright, C. J.
The motion for the change of venue was overruled, for the reason that the defendant did not show that the cause alleged had come to his knowledge since the last continuance. This, it is admittedJie was required to do, unless excused therefrom by the condition of the pleadings, And the argument is that previous to the term at which the application was made, the answer stood undenied, that the issue was not made up, and that defendant could not therefore sooner know that the change would be necessary.
According to the rule recognized in Stacy & Thomas v. Stichton & Co., 9 Iowa 399, the issue was complete without the replication, and the application as a consequence -was too late. Wo think that case, in its principle, governs this.
Judgment affirmed.