| Ind. | Nov 15, 1859
Action by the appellees against the appellant, on a note made by the appellant to one Michael Haran, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs.
The defendant answered—
1. “That the consideration of the note was the purchase from the said Haran of certain tinware, copperware,
4. “ The consideration has wholly failed.”
6. “ As to two hundred and thirty-seven dollars of said note, he says that said note was given as alleged in the first paragraph, and that the following property so entering into the consideration of said note, was injured and broken, and of no value, to-wit:
6 stoves, at 11 dollars each.................... $66 00
3 stoves, Buck's patent....................... 15 00
9 stoves, at 12 dollars each.................... 108 00
1 victory stove..................'............ 13 00
1 set finishing tools (never received)............ 15 00
Pieces casting, lost and wanting............... 20 00
$237 00
Which said goods entered into the consideration of said note at the above prices.”
Demurrers were sustained to the fourth and sixth paragraphs of the answer, and exceptions taken. The other paragraphs of the answer were withdrawn, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff.
■ The assigned errors are, in sustaining the demurrers, and trying the cause without an issue.
The fourth paragraph of the answer was clearly bad, and the demurrer correctly sustained. “ A general plea of failure of consideration is bad.” Applegate v. Crawford, 2 Ind. R. 579.
We are of opinion that the sixth paragraph is also bad. Neither fraud nor any warranty is alleged in reference to the goods claimed to have been defective, nor is anything averred to show that the purchase was made under such circumstances as would authorize the defense attempted to be set up. It is claimed by counsel for appellant that the sixth paragraph refers sufficiently to the first to make
But if the paragraph should be deemed good, so far as the “tools” and “pieces of casting” are concerned, still it would be defective. These tools and castings only amount to 35 dollars, and if the paragraph be deemed good as to this sum, it will still be bad because it does not answer all it purports to answer, viz., 237 dollars. A plea, to-be good, must answer all that it assumes in the introductory part to answer. Conwell v. Finnell, 11 Ind. R. 527. Here, matter good, to say the most of it, as to only 35 dollars, is pleaded in bar of 237 dollars.
It is claimed that the paragraph is good as an answer of set-off. It does not purport to be pleaded by way of set-off; but passing by the form of it in this respect, we think it defective in substance, viewed as a set-off The facts averred do not show any liability from Haran to the defendant, and the foregoing observations are applicable to the paragraph treated as a set-off
In reference to the error assigned, that there was a trial without an issue, it may be observed that it does not appear to be well assigned in point of fact. After the withdrawal of the other paragraphs of the answer, and the decision of the Court upon the demurrers, the defendant expressing his intention to abide by.the demurrers, the record proceeds as follows: “And this cause is now sub
There is no error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed.
The judgment is affirmed with 3 per cent, damages and costs.