Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Mo. 141

Adams v. Trigg

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 15, 1866

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1866-01-15

I. Only a single issue was presented by the pleadings in this case. The only material part of the defendant’s answer was the denial that the plaintiff’s intestate had made the deposit in question, and the court erred in refusing plaintiff’s instructions first asked for, raising this point. The remainder of the answer has reference to -a deposit alleged to have been made by the plaintiff of his own money and in his own right.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1911

8 state decisions

50186618701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WagniiB, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as administrator, to recover of the defendant certain Missouri bank bills and United States treasury notes alleged to have-been specially deposited with him by the plaintiff’s intestate.

¶3*143Defendant in his answer denied that any such deposit was made by plaintiff’s intestate ; but admitted that the plaintiff in his own name made two special deposits with him. He then stated as a defence that the said deposits were delivered back to the plaintiff, or if any part was not so delivered, the same was lost without the fault or negligence of the defendant, and that he was ignorant whether it was the one fact or the other. Plaintiff then filed his motion to strike out the answer, because it set up inconsistent defences, and was multifarious ; which motion was by the court overruled. On a trial before a jury the defendant had a verdict in his favor, on which a judgment was rendered by the court, and the case comes here on writ of error.

¶4Under our present system of practice art answer may contain several different defences, but they must be consistent defences and separately stated.

¶5The court erred in overruling plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendant’s answer, except that portion embodied in the first paragraph. The only material issue tendered in the case was in regard to the deposit alleged to have been made by the plaintiff’s intestate ; the other matter set up was immaterial, irrelevant, and not pertinent. It had relation to a different party, and went to establish a matter which was not a triable issue. The substantive averment in the petition was the fact .of the alleged deposit by the plaintiff’s intestate, and the denial of that fact in the answer presented the only question for trial or adjudication by the court. A party will not be permitted to positively deny the material allegations set forth in the petition, and in the same answer allege other defences wholly and directly inconsistent. He cannot interpose a denial,, and then avail himself of a confession and avoidance.

¶6The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded;

the other judges concur.
/37/mo/141 · .json · Public domain