
    Teagarden v. Baker.
    1. Answer : affirmative matter. Affirmative matter sot up in an answer, if undenied, must Re taken as true.
    2. Justice’s Court. The strict rules of pleading are not enforced in a justice’s court.
    3. Dunsmore v. Elliott, 1 Iowa 599 and Young v. Mumma, 3 Iowa, 140, cited and followed.
    
      Appeal from Story District Court.
    
    
      Thursday, October 13.
    Plaintiff suedbefore a justice to recover a balance claimed upon a promissory note. The defendant answered, that said note was obtained by fraud and without consideration; that plaintiff represented that he was agent for certain reapers, obtained the note and was to send a reaper to defendant; that he was not such agent, and did not send the reaper per agreement. This answer was undenied,' and the justice taking it as true, rendered judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed. In the District Court, upon writ of error, the judgment was affirmed, and defendant appeals.
    
      J. A. Frazier, for the appellant,
    cited the Code of 1851, sections 1284,1742 ; 1 Iowa 599 ; 3 lb. 140.
    No appearance for the appellee.
   Wright, C. J.

The answer is certainly not as full and specific in its averments as it should be to meet the full letter of the law, but bearing in mind that it was filed in a justice’s court, where the strict rules of pleading are not enforced, we are inclined to the opinion upon the authority of Dunsmore v. Elliott, 1 Iowa 599 ; 3 Iowa 140, and other cases, that being undenied, it was a sufficient defense to the plaintiff’s action, and that the judgment is as a consequence erroneous. The case first cited will be found very much like this in its essential facts.

Judgment reversed.  