J. G. TROVATTEN v. C. O. HANSON

Minnesota Supreme Court1927-04-14No. No. 25,961

171 Minn. 130

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment is reversed. The trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on erroneously admitted payment evidence; the proper remedy for trial error is a new trial, which the trial court should consider on remand and, if granted, should permit amendment of the answer to properly allege the payment defense.

This replevin action involved a dispute over ownership of property allegedly secured by a chattel mortgage and note. The defendant answered with a general denial and specific defenses describing the mortgage arrangement, but did not explicitly plead payment as a defense. At trial, the defendant was permitted to introduce evidence of payment over the plaintiff's objection. The trial court granted judgment for the defendant based on this payment evidence, either through judgment notwithstanding the verdict or by ordering a new trial.

The appellate court found that the defendant's failure to specifically plead payment was procedurally defective. Because the plaintiff's answer had identified the source of title (the mortgage and note), the defendant was required to plead payment as an affirmative defense rather than rely on a general denial. The erroneous admission of payment evidence likely influenced the verdict. The court held that judgment notwithstanding the verdict was improper under these circumstances, as the evidence was not conclusive and the remedy for trial errors is a new trial, not judgment contrary to the verdict.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a general denial permits a defendant to raise payment as a defense without specific pleading when plaintiff alleges the source of title
Whether judgment notwithstanding the verdict is appropriate when trial error results in a verdict rather than when evidence is conclusive against the verdict
Whether defective pleadings warrant reversal when the party has a potentially meritorious defense

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed from the trial court's order granting judgment pursuant to an alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial in a replevin action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Wilson, C. J.

Appeal from an order granting judgment pursuant to an alternative motion for judgment non obstante or a new trial.

The action was in replevin. The complaint alleges plaintiff’s ownership in general terms. The answer contains a general denial and specific defenses, and alleges that defendant executed a note secured by a chattel mortgage on the property involved, and that plaintiff claimed the property by virtue of a renewal of said note and mortgage. There is no reply. Over the objection of plaintiff, defendant was permitted to prove payment.

When a plaintiff alleges title generally to the property involved— not indicating definitely the source of his title — the defendant may under a general denial attack the contract or instrument upon which plaintiff relies to prove title. Adamson v. Wiggins, 45 Minn. 448, 48 N. W. 185. A defendant may usually under a general denial meet plaintiff’s proof by showing that he is not guilty of the accusation made in the complaint. Dodge v. McMahan, 61 Minn. 175, 63 N. W. 487; Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Minn. Th. Mfg. Co. 70 Minn. 528, 73 N. W. 415; Atwater v. Spalding, 86 Minn. 101, 90 N. W. 370, 91 Am. St. 331. Facts which tend to directly contradict and dispute the allegations and proofs of the adversary may he proved under a general denial and need not he specifically pleaded. Hanson v. Diamond I. Min. Co. 87 Minn. 505, 92 N. W. 447. But this is not the rule where plaintiff pleads the source of his title. Dun. Dig. § 8412. The answer in this case disclosed the source of plaintiff’s title.- Without a reply this stood as established. This made it necessary for defendant to plead payment if that was his defense. He did not do so. It is just as much new matter as illegality of contract which must be pleaded. Banner Grain Co. v. Burr Farmers E. & S. Co. 162 Minn. 334, 202 N. W. 740. The pleadings brought the matter of payment within the field of confession and avoidance. Evidence of payment was erroneously received. The verdict probably rested upon the theory of payment having been made.

If we construe the record rightly the trial court granted judgment upon the theory that he had erroneously received the evidence of payment. Judgment will be ordered non obstante only when the evidence is conclusive against the verdict. Here it was not. Judgment will not be ordered for error in either law or procedure committed at the trial. Bosch v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 131 Minn. 313, 155 N. W. 202; Hoggarth v. M. & St. L. R. Co. 138 Minn. 472, 164 N. W. 658; Wampa v. Lyshik, 144 Minn. 274, 175 N. W. 301. In such case the remedy is a new trial, not judgment contrary to the verdict. When it appears probable that a party has a good cause of action, although technically not correctly pleaded, judgment should not be ordered. Bennett v. G. N. Ry. Co. 115 Minn. 128, 131 N. W. 1066, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 521. In fact judgment notwithstanding the verdict should not be ordered where it is probable that any mere deficiency in either pleading or proof can be supplied if another trial is had. Nadeau v. Maryland Cas. Co. 170 Minn. 326, 212 N. W. 595.

The record is confusing and had the trial court excluded the evidence upon the trial and the point been made clear that the defense was payment the court would doubtless have permitted an amendment alleging payment. Courts are not inclined to see litigants fail because of a simple defective pleading. Tbe motion for a new trial is pending and will be determined by tbe trial court. Parker v. Fryberger, 165 Minn. 374, 206 N. W. 716; Central Met. Bank v. Fid. & Cas. Co. 159 Minn. 28, 198 N. W. 137; Kies v. Searles, 146 Minn. 359, 178 N. W. 811. If granted a motion to amend tbe answer so as to allege payment should be entertained.

Reversed.