96 Kan. 225 | Kan. | 1915
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The action was one to recover an installment of money due the city under the terms of an ordinance granting the defendant the use of the streets of' the city in supplying its inhabitants with gas and electricity. The answer pleaded certain facts which it was claimed relieved the defendant from its obligation. The reply denied each and every material allegation of the answer except those which were specifically
The defendant contends that the' matters constituting the defense were admitted by the reply. Very clearly the reply is not open to such an interpretation. It expressly denied everything not specifically admitted and specifically admitted nothing. Its import was that the averments of the answer were not true at all, but that if the defendant should succeed in establishing them all the facts occurred before the former trial and were then adjudicated. Unless supplemented by the claimed admission of the plaintiff the defendant’s evidence was • not sufficient to defeat recovery and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.