Register Printing Co. v. Willis

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Register Printing Co. v. Willis

58 N.W. 825, 57 Minn. 93, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 228

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 20, 1894

DocketNo. 8584

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 N.W. 825 (Register Printing Co. v. Willis) 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

Register Printing Co. v. Willis, 58 N.W. 825, 57 Minn. 93, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 228 (Mich. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

This was an action to recover for labor and services alleged to have been performed by plaintiff for defendants at their instance and request, and to be of the reasonable value of $345, of which only $75 bad been paid. The answer was, in effect, a general denial.

The evidence was sufficient to justify a finding that the services sued for were performed for defendants as alleged. The evidence was undisputed that such services consisted of printing a “paper book” of 345 pages, and were reasonably worth $1 per page, or $345; but it also appeared on cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses that the work was done under an express contract that plaintiff was to receive seventy five cents per page if defendants won the suit, but only fifty cents per page if they lost it. It does not appear whether the suit was lost or won, but, assuming that it was lost, the contract price would be $172.50, leaving a balance due plaintiff of $97.50. The court found that the services were reasonably worth $173, and ordered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $98.

Disregarding the trifling discrepancy of fifty cents it will be observed that the amount of the recovery was the amount due plaintiff on the special contract, and much less than the reasonable value of the services. The defense that the work was done under an express contract as to price was not open to defendants under the general denial. That was a matter which should have been set up in the answer. Under a general denial the defendant may prove anything which tends to disprove the facts upon which the plaintiff relies to recover. That there was an express contract as to price would not tend to disprove any of the allegations of the complaint. Lautenschlager v. Hunter, 22 Minn. 267.

Defendants, by their answer, elected to rest their defense upon [96]*96an issue as to the reasonable value of the services, and must abide by it. Whether plaintiff was a corporation or a mere copartnership was not material.

Order affirmed.

(Opinion published 58 N. W. 825.)

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

Mitchell, J.

This was an action to recover for labor and services alleged to have been performed by plaintiff for defendants at their instance and request, and to be of the reasonable value of $345, of which only $75 bad been paid. The answer was, in effect, a general denial.

The evidence was sufficient to justify a finding that the services sued for were performed for defendants as alleged. The evidence was undisputed that such services consisted of printing a “paper book” of 345 pages, and were reasonably worth $1 per page, or $345; but it also appeared on cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses that the work was done under an express contract that plaintiff was to receive seventy five cents per page if defendants won the suit, but only fifty cents per page if they lost it. It does not appear whether the suit was lost or won, but, assuming that it was lost, the contract price would be $172.50, leaving a balance due plaintiff of $97.50. The court found that the services were reasonably worth $173, and ordered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $98.

Disregarding the trifling discrepancy of fifty cents it will be observed that the amount of the recovery was the amount due plaintiff on the special contract, and much less than the reasonable value of the services. The defense that the work was done under an express contract as to price was not open to defendants under the general denial. That was a matter which should have been set up in the answer. Under a general denial the defendant may prove anything which tends to disprove the facts upon which the plaintiff relies to recover. That there was an express contract as to price would not tend to disprove any of the allegations of the complaint. Lautenschlager v. Hunter, 22 Minn. 267.

Defendants, by their answer, elected to rest their defense upon [96]*96an issue as to the reasonable value of the services, and must abide by it. Whether plaintiff was a corporation or a mere copartnership was not material.

Order affirmed.

(Opinion published 58 N. W. 825.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.W. 825, 57 Minn. 93, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/register-printing-co-v-willis-minn-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack