Arthur v. Fetterman

THOMAS, J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff L. J. Arthur against the defendant George C. Fetterman to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of certain alleged fraudulent representations, alleged by plaintiff to have been made in connection with an exchange of real properties between himself and defendant, and as fully set forth in the complaint.

The defendant, by his answer, makes admission as to certain allegations of the complaint, but for our present purposes suffice it to say that, so far as material here, with the said exceptions, all the material allegations of the complaint

[54]

are denied. No demurrer was interposed. There was a trial by jury, and the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, for the sum of twenty thousand dollars. Motion for a new trial was made, and "denied. From the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Appellant relies upon and urges the following five “points” for a reversal here, viz.: (1) That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (2) That the court erred in not granting defendant’s motion for nonsuit; (3) That the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict; (4) That the plaintiff is not a party in interest; and (5) That the court erred in its instructions to the jury.

No purpose of value could, we think, he served by quoting from any of the pleadings, or in attempting any formidable discussion of the points presented or the principles involved; for, as we understand it, all these have already been abundantly covered by the decisions in this state. At the very beginning of the trial before the jury, and after the plaintiff—who was the first witness—had been sworn and had answered one question, defendant interposed an objection to the introduction of any evidence on the ground “that the facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a cause of action; . . . and upon the further ground, upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it appears that the plaintiff in the action is not entitled to any relief whatsoever, either in law or in equity.” The objection was overruled by the court. This ruling, we think, was proper, as we are of the opinion that against this objection—which, in legal contemplation and for all practical purposes, is the same thing as a general demurrer—the complaint is good.