DocketNumber: Nos. 19731—(132)
Citation Numbers: 132 Minn. 415
Judges: Taylor
Filed Date: 4/28/1916
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
Both parties concede that plaintiff seeks to recover upon a contract. Plaintiff demurred to the first counterclaim set forth in defendant’s answer upon the ground that the counterclaim was based upon a tort and not upon contract and did not arise out of the transactions set forth in the complaint. The demurrer was sustained and defendant appealed.
It appears from the counterclaim that defendant had issued its capital stock of the par value of $4,000 to plaintiff and had received therefor plaintiff’s promissory note in the sum of $4,000; that plaintiff had entered into a written contract to sell a tract of Canadian land to one Imhoff and held Imhbff’s notes in the sum of $12,000 for the unpaid purchase price therefor; that, as a part of the transaction in which plaintiff purchased defendant’s stock, the Imhoff contract and notes were delivered to defendant as security for plaintiff’s note, and it was agreed that plaintiff’s note should be renewed at maturity and be paid out of
Plaintiff contends that this counterclaim states an action for damages for fraud and deceit. Defendant contends that it states a cause of action upon the note, and alleges the other matters merely to show that defendant should be relieved from the obligation to satisfy the note out of the security. As pleadings both the complaint and answer might be improved.
In view of the nature of the action, and of the fact that the defendant sets forth the note and seeks to recover the amount thereof, and of the further fact that defendant sets forth eight other counterclaims in which it seeks to recover the amount of eight other written instruments for the payment of money, we hold that the counterclaim in question should be construed as based upon contract and not as stating a cause of action for fraud or deceit.
Order reversed.