Court Opinion

ID: 9864901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:16:15.974513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:32.835338
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Adams,
concurring* in the conclusions.
I think the- allegation in defendant Wyman’s “further answer and counterclaim” (as he designates it), to the effect that plaintiff McCarthy sold the 18 head of cattle to defendant and that the latter paid for them, is an allegation of a material, substantive fact, which, if true, constituted a complete defense. If it had been proven, it would have defeated plaintiff ’s recovery. This *345being’ so, it seems to me that the court struck too muck from the answer in this respect. It was directly connected with the subject of the action, i. e., the right of possession.
Notwithstanding’ the above, the district court did not restrict defendant in his proof on the subject of such alleged sale and payment, in so far as it affected the question of right of possession. The court seems to have allowed such testimony under the general issue, but whatever theory was followed, the allowance of such testimony fully accomplished defendant’s purpose. It cured the error, if any, in striking portions of the answer; it was therefore without prejudice. For these reasons, I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.