
    LEOPOLD BOSCOVITZ, Respondent, v. WALTER COOPER, Appellant.
    I Submitted June 8,1897.
    Decided Oct. 11, 1897.]
    
      Judgment — When Sustained hy Pleading.
    
    A complaint which states a cause of action, and a replication which directly denies all the affirmative matters alleged in the answer, will support a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, although some of the averments in the replication are indirect and ambiguous.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Gallatin county. F. K. Armstrong, Judge.
    
    Action by Leopold Boscovitz against Walter Cooper. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Statement of the case.
    This was an action on a promissory note. The answer to the complaint set forth that, as collateral security for the payment of the note, the defendant had assigned to plaintiff certain bonds of a value in excess of the sum for which the note had been executed; and that the plaintiff had, with intent to defraud defendant, converted said bonds to his own use, and had allowed a credit on the notes of less than the market value of said bonds at the time of their alleged conversion.
    The replication denied that the bonds were worth what the defendant claimed, and denied any conversion of them. Proceeding, it ‘ ‘denies that the plaintiff, at any time or at all, without any right or authority, sold or disposed of said bonds, or either thereof, with intent to defraud or cheat the defendant, or that he ever sold or disposed of said bonds, or any thereof, in any way or manner except as he was authorized to do by virtue of the law in such cases made and provided, and of his contract with the defendant, and by the direction of the defendant, at public auction, after due and legal, notice, to the highest and best bidder for cash at which sale said bonds, and every one of them, were sold at their full market value, and the proceeds of said sale were duly credited on said note by plaintiff. ’ ’ Several other issues were raised, which it is unnecessáry to set forth. Upon these pleadings, the case was tried to the court, without a jury.
    The appeal is from the judgment in favor of plaintiff.
    
      A. D. McPherson, Smith & Word, and A. J. Campbell, for Appellant.
    
      Luce de Luce, for Respondent.
   Pee Cueiam.

None of the evidence is contained in the record. The appellant contends that the pleadings do not support the judgment.

The replication is not a model of good pleading. Its averments as to the disposal of the bonds held as collateral se.curity for the payment of the note were somewhat indirect and ambiguous.’ No objection was made •to the replication, however, and it contained direct denials of all the affirmative averments of the answer, which fully sufficed to raise issues for trial. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in appellant’s contention that the pleadings do not support the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.  