42 Colo. 270 | Colo. | 1908
delivered'the opinion of the court:
The complaint in this action alleges that appellee is indebted to appellant in the sum of one hundred and ten dollars upon a written contract for the purchase of goods. After denying the allegations of the complaint, the defendant alleged that she agreed with the agent of plaintiff to purchase goods amounting to eleven dollars, but that the agent, then and there intending and contriving to cheat and defraud defendant, falsely represented to her that it was necessary that she sign a printed order for the goods, and that he showed her an order for the goods amounting to eleven dollars, and requested her to sign it; but that he fraudulently and without her knowledge
“We observe, in the first, place, that whatever defects may exist in the portion of the answer under consideration, the demurrer is still more defective.*273 The attempt thus made to separate the averments descriptive of the fraud practiced upon the defendant into two distinct offenses, seems to be wholly without pretext. This portion of the answer does not purport to state two grounds of defense, but the single ground that the defendant was induced to enter into the contract of purchase through fraud, and that he has been injured thereby in the sum stated. ’ ’
Again, in the same case, it is said:
“The connected structure of a pleading cannot thus be destroyed or disjointed at the pleasure of a pleader, and its disconnected averments separately demurred to. Such a practice is not to be tolerated. ’ ’
See, also, Cochrane v. Parker, 5 Colo. App. 527.
Taking the entire defense as alleged in this answer, it would seem to be sufficient, if true. If the agent showed. the defendant a written order for eleven dollars’ worth of goods which she consented to purchase, and signed the order for the purpose of procuring the goods, and then, by some subterfuge, chicanery or fraud procured her signature to another order which called for one hundred and ten dollars’ worth of goods, and, upon receipt of the goods and the discovery of the fraud, she immediately returned them to the principal and the principal retained possession of them; this would seem to constitute a valid defense to an action upon the contract for the purchase price of the goods.
The defendant also alleged, by way of defense; that the plaintiffs had failed to file in the office of the clerk and recorder an affidavit of copartnership, as required by statute. Motion was made to strike this allegation from the answer, and it is said that the court erred in overruling the motion. The answer alleges that the plaintiff ought not to have
The allegation in the answer appears to show the failure, on the part of plaintiffs, to comply with the requirements of this statute, and if the facts were as stated in the answer, the plaintiffs could not prosecute the action until they had complied with the statute. Consequently, there was no error in overruling the motion.
No exception was taken to the instructions given by the court to the jury, and it rendered a verdict for the defendant.
It is contended that the verdict was not supported by the evidence. We have examined the testimony, and find that there is sufficient legal evidence in the record to support the verdict. That being true, it should not be disturbed.
Affirmed.
Chief Justice Steele and Mr. Justice Goddard concur.