Court Opinion

ID: 9827197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:16:28.236797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:26.067218
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[6] We are of opinion that the facts set up in defendants’ answer, as shown in appellants’ statement thereof, and as copied in the main opinion, constituted defensive matter which was available to defendant under the general denial. The striking out of such portion of the answer was therefore harmless, in view of the fact that the general denial remained. The portion of the answer stricken out was really a pleading of defendants’ evidence.
[7] An inspection of the charges given and refused, and the issues thereby indicated, shows that testimony was allowed to be introduced touching the matters embraced in what was stricken out. Under these circumstances, we cannot see wherein it appears that defendants were prejudiced by the court’s action in sustaining the demurrer.
[8] It is true that defendants based a cross-action upon the facts contained in what was stricken out, which was a relief they could not have had under a general denial. But when it appears, as it does here, that those facts were gone into on the trial, and the jury have found adversely to defendants on them, it becomes evident that defendants had no ground for the cross-action, and were not prejudiced by the court’s ruling on the demurrer, in respect thereto, for, if the facts did not exist to constitute a defense, they did not exist to constitute a cause of action.
There being no statement of facts, and the only error which we may consider being that in reference to the demurrer, and this action of the court being found to be harmless error, if any, we think the judgment of the district court should be affirmed for the above reasons, as well as for the reasons stated in the main opinion.
Motion overruled.