CODE CIVIL PROCEDURE
Civil Actions §§ 7445-7448
As to similar provision in Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 432, see McGary v. Pedrorena, 58 Cal. 91; Thompson v. Johson, 60 Cal. 292; Redington v. Cornwell, 90 Cal. 49, 27 Pac. 40; Dowling v. Comerford, 99 Cal. 204, 33 Pac. 853.
§ 7446. When answer. When any of the matters enumerated in section 7443 do not appear upon the face of the complaint, the objection may be taken by answer.
[R.C. 1905, § 6857; C. Civ. P. 1877, § 116; R.C. 1899, § 5271.]
Matters not apparent upon face of complaint to be raised by answer. Trotter v. Life Assoc., 9 S.D. 596, 70 N.W. 843, 62 Am St. Rep. 887; Acme Mer. Agency v. Rochford, 10 S.D. 203, 72 N.W. 466, 65 Am. St. Rep. 714; Lee v. Town of Mellette, 15 S.D. 586, 90 N.W. 855.
As to similar provision in Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 433, see Los Angeles R. Co. v. Davis, 146 Cal. 179, 106 Am. St. Rep. 20, 79 Pac. 865; Rutenberg v. Main 47 Cal. 213.
§ 7447. When objection waived. If no such objection is taken either by demurrer or answer, the defendant shall be deemed to have waived the same, excepting only the objection to the jurisdiction of the court and the objection that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
[R.C. 1905, § 6858; C. Civ. P. 1877, § 117; R.C. 1899, § 5272.]
An objection not raised is deemed waived. J. I. Case Co. v. Pederson, 6 S.D. 140, 60 N.W. 747; Mather v. Dunn, 11 S.D. 196, 76 N.W. 922, 74 Am. St. Rep. 788; Evans v. Fall River County, 9 S.D. 130, 68 N.W. 195; Porter v. Booth 1 S.D. 558, 47 N.W. 960; Heegaard v. Trust Co., 3 S.D. 569, 54 N.W. 656; Rose v. Wait, 4 S.D. 584, 57 N.W. 497.
Objection to jurisdiction not waived by failure to demur. Nelson v. Ladd, 4 S.D. 1, 54 N.W. 809; James Riv. Bank v. Purchase, 9 N.D. 280, 83 N.W. 7.
Objection that pleading does not state facts sufficient, not favored. Presumption in favor of the pleading. Fahey v. Esterly Company, 3 N.D. 220, 55 N.W. 580, 44 Am. St. Rep. 554; J. I. Case Co. v. Pederson, 6 S.D. 140, 60 N.W. 747; Southard v. Smith, 8 S.D. 230, 66 N.W. 316; Whitebeck v. Sees, 10 S.D. 417, 73 N.W. 915; Sherwood v. City of Sioux Falls, 10 S.D. 405, 73 N.W. 913.
Necessity of objection of defect of parties defendant being raised by answer. Clements v. Miller, 13 N.D. 176, 100 N.W. 239.
Question as to sufficiency of facts to constitute counterclaim is not waived by reply denying facts. Scully Steel & I. Co. v. Hann. 18 N.D. 528, 123 N.W. 275.
Misjoinder of causes of action was waived by failure to demur. Pithan v. Wangler, 29 S.D. 549, 136 N.W. 1084.
By going to trail upon merits on issue arising under complaint and answer defendant waived any right to insist upon defect of parties defendant. State ex rel. Viking Twp. v. Mikkelson, 24 N.D. 175, 139 N.W. 525.
ARTICLE 3
THE ANSWER
_______
§ 7448. Requisites of answer. The answer of the defendant must contain:
1. A general of specific denial of each material allegation of the complaint controverted by the defendant, or of any knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief.
2. A statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counterclaim in ordinary and concise language without repetition.
[R.C. 1905, § 6859; C. Civ. P. 1877, § 118; R.C. 1899, § 5273.]
Denial for want of knowledge or information sufficient to form belief. State v. King, 6 S.D. 297, 60 N.W. 75; Hardy v. Purington, 6 S.D. 382, 61 N.W. 158; Sigmund v. Bank, 4 N.D. 164, 59 N.W. 966; Cumins v. Lawrence Co., 2 S.D. 452, 50 N.W. 900; Cumins v. Lawrence Co., 1 S.D. 158, 46 N.W. 182: Gjuerstadgen v. Hartzell, 8 N.D. 424, 79 N.W. 872; Russell & Co. v. Amundson 4 N.D. 112, 59 N.W. 477; Mass Loan & Trust Co. v. Twichell, 7 N.D. 440, 75 N.W. 786; Wilson v. Ins. Co., 15 S.D. 322, 89 N.W. 649.
Answer to be liberally construed. Laney v. Ingalls, 5 S.D. 183, 58 N.W. 572.
Denial of knowledge or information to form a belief, sufficient denial where knowledge not presumed. Stoddard v. Lyon, 18 S.D. 207, 99 N.W. 116.
As to what evidence is "new matter" constituting defense or counterclaim. Hogen v. Klabo, 13 N.D. 319, 100 N.W. 847.
Defense of failure of consideration may be interposed in action for purchase price of land. Dahl v. Stakke 12 N.D. 325, 96 N.W. 353.
In action on note given on conditional sale of land, counterclaim, setting up conditions on which sale was made which rendered notes voidable, need not show that acts
1741
