Case Name: Dyson v. Ream
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1859-06-15
Citations: 9 Iowa 51
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dyson v. Ream.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 51–53

Head Matter:
Dyson v. Ream.
1. Pleadings : general issue, under the system of pleadings inaugurated by the Code, there is no general issue.
2. Defense in trespass. If the defense in an action of trespass, is, that the property in controversy did not at the time of the alleged trespass, belong to the plaintiff, and that it did belong to the defendant, the3e facts must be set up in the answer before the defendant can be allowed to prove them on the trial.
Appeal from, WinnesheiJc District Court.
Wednesday, June 15.
This is an action wherein the plaintiff claimed the sum of one hundred dollars, as justly due him from defendant, by reason of his wrongfully taking from the possession of the plaintiff, and converting to his own use, a quantity of corn, standing and growing in the field, of the property of plaintiff, and to his damage, one hundred dollars. The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted to the plaintiff, in the said sum of one hundred dollars, or any other sum; denied the taking of any corn fron; the possession of plaintiff, or converting the same to his own use; and denied generally the allegations of the petition.
On the trial, the defendant offered to prove ownership and possession of the corn in himself. The court ruled that' as the defendant had not in his answer, alleged title or possession of the corn in himself, he could not, under the issue joined, be allowed to give the same in evidence. To this ruling, there was an exception. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Noble $ Drummond, for the appellant.
No appearance for the appellee.

Opinion:
Stockton, J.
At the common law, in an action of tres-
pass to personal property, the plea of "not guilty" was proper, if the plaintiff had no property in the goods, or the defendant was not guilty of the taking. So, if he did take the goods, but they did not belong to the plaintiff, the plea of tho general issue- was proper. Stephens' Pleading, 195; 1 Chitty's Pleading, 538.
Under the system of pleading inaugurated by our Code, there is, strictly speaking, no general issue. The defence relied upon, must be pleaded. If reliance is placed on the fact, that defendant did not commit the grievances complained of, a denial of the facts alleged is sufficient. If, however, the defence is, that the property did not belong to the plaintiff, but belonged to the defendant, the answer must set up these facts, before the defendant can be allowed to prove them on the trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Walters v. Washington Insurance Company, 1 Iowa 404: Hutchinson v. Sangster, 4 G. Greene 340 : Bowen & King v. Hale, 4 Iowa 430 : Hagan v. Burch, 8 Ib 310.