
    Nash & McGrorty, Appellants, vs. Murnan & Grace, Respondents.
    APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT OOUET OP RAMSEY COUNTY.
    A complaint for balance due for work and labor stated, — that there was a written contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant, — that under and by virtue of such contract Plaintiff performed work and labor, within certain times, on certain sections of the Minneapolis & Cedar Valley R. U., naming the time and sections — the value of the labor performed — the amount paid, and the balance unpaid, with a proper demand for judgment for the balance. Held, to be good. The Defendants might take issue upon the contract or the performance thereof, or set up such other de-fence as they might have had.
    The following is a copy of the complaint in this action :
    The Plaintiffs above named respectfully show to the Court, that under and by virtue of a special contract in writing between them and the above named Defendants, they performed work and labor for said Defendants in and upon certain sections of the Minneapolis and Cedar Valley Railroad, to wit: No. 33 and 32, between the 28th day of August, 1858, and the 20th day of June, a. d. 1859, and that by the terms of said contract the Plaintiffs were entitled to the sum of $4,181, 11-100 from said Defendants for and on account of said work and labor.
    Plaintiffs allege that they have been paid on account of said work and labor, only the sum of $3735.02. That there is now due to them on account of said work and labor, the sum of $488.09, &c., &c.
    Points and Authorities for Appellants.
    The Court erred in overruling- the demurrer. Facts, and not legal conclusions should be stated. Van 8antford,s PI., pp. 241 to 254; Voorhees* Code) 2 Duer Pep., 273; 5 Saunders, 558; 8 Am. Ed. Ghitty’s PI., vol. 1 ,pp. 288, 303, 332 to 336/ 2 Wend., 479.
    J. B. BbisbiN, Counsel for Appellants.
    Smith & Gilmau, Counsel for Respondents,
   By the Court

Flandeau, J.

— The complaint in this action contains the essential issuable facts of a good'cause of action for work and labor, as follows : 1st, that there was a written contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant; 2d, that under and by virtue of such contract they performed work and labor, within certain times, on certain sections óf the Minneapolis and Cedar Yalley Railroad, naming the time, and sections, which is a sufficient allegation that the contract was for work and labor upon the specified sections at the time stated; 3d, the value of the labor performed ; 4th, the amount paid, and the balance unpaid, with a proper demand for judgment for the balance.

' The Defendants may either take issue upon the contract, or the performance, or set up such other defence as they may have.

The order overruling the demurrer is affirmed. Case remanded with leave to the Defendants to answer within twenty days after service of notice of this decision.  