Mantyaja v. Kuivala

RICHARDS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor and from an order denying a new trial.

The complaint is in two counts, the first to recover two hundred and fifty dollars and interest, alleged to have been

[397]

loaned by plaintiff to John Kuivala, and the second to re-

(

cover fifty dollars, the amount of a later loan to him. The

I

answer of the defendant Kuivala denies the loan sued upon in the first count of the complaint; and, as to the second count, i sets up the defense of want of jurisdiction and misjoinder of causes of action.

The evidence reveals a peculiar and involved state of facts which may be summarized as follows: In April, 1911, one Ina , Wctener, a girl who was engaged to marry John Kuivala, came > to the plaintiff, Anna Mantyaja, and asked her for the loan of two hundred and fifty dollars to help pay for a small house

\\

to be occupied by her after her marriage. Plaintiff gave her a check for this amount. Ina Wetener then went to plain- ! tiff’s sister, Beda Mantyaja, and borrowed from her two hundred dollars more upon a similar representation. Shortly after the marriage, the plaintiff, being about to go on a visit to Sweden, saw John Kuivala and his wife regarding her loan; and it was then agreed among them that John Kuivala should give his promissory note for the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars, covering both of the above loans; and because the plaintiff was going away, it was further agreed that the note should be made out in the name of the plaintiff’s sister, Beda Mantyaja, as the payee thereof. During the plaintiff’s absence, John Kuivala paid Beda Mantyaja the sum of two hundred dollars, the same being intended to liquidate her interest in the note and being so applied. After the plaintiff’s return, she went to 'live for a time ivith John Kuivala and his wife; and while there loaned to Kuivala the fifty dollars referred to in the second count of her complaint. ' Being unable to collect either of these loans, she brought this action, and joined her sister Beda as a codefendant with Kuivala, apparently upon the theory that this would lead to the surrender and cancellation of the note, which, for some reason, her sister Beda had not transferred to her. Beda Mantyaja defaulted; but when the case was tried, the note was produced in court in the possession of the plaintiff, and was ordered canceled. The findings of the court are generally that all the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint are true, and all the averments of the defendant’s answer are untrue. Judgment was accordingly rendered in plaintiff’s favor upon both counts of the complaint.