5 Iowa 468 | Iowa | 1858
We are of opinion, that the district court erred, in holding that the answer was insufficient, and in rendering judgment against the defendant by default, as for want of an answer. It is obvious that by an oversight, or slip of the pen, the defendant uses the word “answer,” instead of the word “petition;” and that the objection made by plaintiffs, was not to the insufficiency arising from this oversight, but to the fact, that the answer is a general, and not a specific, denial of the allegations of the petition, and that such a denial is not sufficient, under section 1742 of the Code. Whether such an answer is a sufficient denial of the petition, has not been directly decided by this court; and the question in the present cause, is not so much whether the answer was insufficient under the section above cited, as whether, upon the facts shown by the record, the court erred in holding that there was no answer to the petition, and in rendering judgment by default as for want of an answer.
A further assignment of error is made by defendant, upon the order of the court, that the clerk should assess the plaintiffs’ damages, and upon the judgment rendered
Judgment reversed.