Cowing v. Peterson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Cowing v. Peterson

30 N.W. 461, 36 Minn. 130, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 257

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 6, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 N.W. 461 (Cowing v. Peterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cowing v. Peterson, 30 N.W. 461, 36 Minn. 130, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 257 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Gileillan, O. J.

The action was on a contract alleged by the complaint to have been in writing. The answer was a general denial, [131]*131and was verified by the defendant. On the trial the court, against defendant’s objection that the execution had not been proved, admitted the contract in evidence without proof of execution. This raises the only question that needs to be specifically considered. The majority of the court are of opinion that, where a pleading alleges the execution of a written contract upon which the cause of action, defence, or counterclaim set forth is based, a general denial in the opposite pleading, though it be verified, is not a denial of the signature or execution under oath or affidavit, such as is contemplated by Gen. St. 1878, c. 73, § 89; but the denial must be specific, in order to make proof of the execution necessary at the trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gileillan, O. J.

The action was on a contract alleged by the complaint to have been in writing. The answer was a general denial, [131]*131and was verified by the defendant. On the trial the court, against defendant’s objection that the execution had not been proved, admitted the contract in evidence without proof of execution. This raises the only question that needs to be specifically considered. The majority of the court are of opinion that, where a pleading alleges the execution of a written contract upon which the cause of action, defence, or counterclaim set forth is based, a general denial in the opposite pleading, though it be verified, is not a denial of the signature or execution under oath or affidavit, such as is contemplated by Gen. St. 1878, c. 73, § 89; but the denial must be specific, in order to make proof of the execution necessary at the trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.W. 461, 36 Minn. 130, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowing-v-peterson-minn-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack