
    Ole O. Moen vs. William H. Eldred.
    April 13, 1876.
    Answer — Form of Denial. — “The defendant, for answer to plaintiff’s complaint, respectfully states and shows to this court that he denies each and every allegation in said plaintiff’s complaint contained.” Held, to be a sufficient denial, though not commendable in form.
    Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis. The action was for nine days’ services at the agreed price of $1.50 per day, the complaint also alleging that such services were reasonably worth that sum per day. The defence was the general denial stated in the opinion, and facts claimed to constitute a special contract, and a breach of such contract by plaintiff. A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings was granted, judgment was entered, and defendant appealed.
    
      Wliytoclc & Albaugh, for appellant.
    
      Arctander & Reynolds, for respondent.
   Berry, J.

The answer in this case commences as follows: “ The defendant, * * * for answer to plaintiff’s complaint, * * * respectfully states and shows to this court that he denies each and every allegation in said plaintiff’s complaint contained,” etc. As to the sufficiency of this mode of denial the courts differ. See Blake v. Eldred, 18 How. Pr. 240; Powers v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 3 Hun, 285 ; People v. Christopher, 4 Hun, 805 ; Chapman v. Chapman, 34 How. Pr. 281; Espinosa v. Gregory, 40 Cal. 58 ; Munn v. Taulman, 1 Kans. 254; see, also, Moak’s Van Santvoord, 526, note 3.

We think the form of answer above quoted is equivalent in effect, as well as in the intention of the pleader, to the following, viz.: The defendant, for answer to plaintiff’s complaint, denies each and every allegation, etc. It is, therefore, a sufficient denial, although, as a matter of course, it is better, in pleading as elsewhere, not to use superfluous words.

Judgment and order for judgment reversed.  