and satisfaction is also new matter; and a discharge in bankruptcy or insolvency; 2 and a defence based upon a statutory 340; but see Unglish v. Marvin, 128 N. Y. 380; Harris v. Frank, 81 Cal. 280. Tender, Hegler v. Eddy, 53 Cal. 597. [Hardy Implement Co. v. South Bend Iron Works (1895), 129 Mo. 222, 31 S. W. 599; Jasper County Ry. Co. v. Curtis (1900), 154 Mo. 10, 55 S. W. 222; Thompson v. Cohen (1894), 127 Mo. 215, 28 S. W. 984; Cockrill v. Hutchinson (1896), 135 Mo. 67, 36 S. W. 375; Sanders v. Chartrand (1900), 158 Mo. 352, 59 S. W. 95; Throckmorton v. Pence (1893), 121 Mo. 50, 25 S. W. 843; Cadematori v. Gauger (1901), 160 Mo. 352, 61 S. W. 195; Seibert v. Bloomfield (1901), Ky., 63 S. W. 584; Excelsior Coal Co. v. Virginia Coal Co. (1902), Ky., 66 S. W. 373; Beardsley v. Clem (1902), 137 Cal. 328, 70 Pac. 175; Newhall v. Hatch (1901), 134 Cal. 269, 66 Pac. 266; Reynolds v. Pascoe (1901), 24 Utah, 219, 66 Pac. 1064; Rio Grande West. R. R. Co. v. Power Co. (1900), 23 Utah, 22, 63 Pac. 995; Poynter v. Chipman (1893), 8 Utah, 442, 32 Pac. 690; Bruce v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (1893), 24 Ore. 486, 34 Pac. 16; Bays v. Trulson (1893), 25 Ore. 109, 35 Pac. 26; Swank v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. (1895), 61 Minn. 423, 63 N. W. 1088; Stephenson v. Bankers' Life Ass'n (1899), 108 Ia. 637, 79 N. W. 459; Kahler v. Iowa, etc. Ins. Co. (1898), 106 Ia. 380, 76 N. W. 734; Spencer v. Papach (1897), 103 Ia. 513, 70 N. W. 748, 72 N. W. 665; Sherod v. Ewell (1897), 104 Ia. 253, 73 N. W. 493; Warder v. Cuthbert (1896), 99 Ia. 681, 68 N. W. 917; Golden v. Hardesty (1895), 93 Ia. 622, 61 N. W. 913; Hector Min. Co. v. Valley View Min. Co. (1901), 28 Colo. 315, 64 Pac. 205; Adams v. Adams (1903), Ind. 66 N. E. 153; Taylor v. Patton (1903), Ind. 66 N. E. 91; Dudley v. Pigg (1897), 149 Ind. 363, 48 N. E. 642; Frain v. Burgett (1898), 152 Ind. 55, 50 N. E. 873; Center School Tp. v. State ex rel. (1897), 150 Ind. 168, 49 N. E. 961; Kiefer v. Klinsick (1895), 144 Ind. 46, 42 N. E. 447; Union Bank v. Hutton (1903), Neb., 95 N. W. 1061; Neb. Mortgage, etc. Co. v. Van Kloster (1894), 42 Neb. 746, 60 N. W. 1016; Cobbey v. Buchanan (1896), 48 Neb. 391, 67 N. W. 176; Blue Valley Lumber Co. v. Couro (1900), 61 Neb. 39, 84 N. W. 402; Burwell Irrig. Co. v. Lashmett (1900), 59 Neb. 605, 81 N. W. 617; Holmes v. Lincoln Salt Lake Co. (1899), 58 Neb. 74, 78 N. W. 379; Henderson v. Keutzer (1898), 56 Neb. 460, 76 N. W. 881; German Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank (1898), 55 Neb. 86, 75 N. W. 531; Boales v. Ferguson (1898), 55 Neb. 565, 76 N. W. 18; Gaylord v. Neb. Sav. Bank (1898), 54 Neb. 104, 74 N. W. 415; City Nat. Bank v. Thomas (1896), 46 Neb. 861, 65 N. W. 895; Scroggin v. Johnston (1895), 45 Neb. 714, 64 N. W. 236; Palmer Oil Co. v. Blodgett (1899), 60 Kan. 712, 57 Pac. 947; City of Chippewa Falls v. Hopkins (1901), 109 Wis. 611, 85 N. W. 553; Bank of Antigo v. Ryan (1899), 105 Wis. 37, 80 N. W. 440; Pratt v. Hawes (1903), 118 Wis. 603, 95 N. W. 965; Interstate Savings, etc. Ass'n v. Knapp (1898), 20 Wash. 225, 55 Pac. 48; Jacobs v. First Nat. Bank (1896), 15 Wash. 358, 46 Pac. 396; Moore v. Brownfield (1894), 10 Wash. 439, 39 Pac. 113; Schurtz v. Colvin (1896), 55 O. St. 274, 45 N. W. 527; Village of Chester v. Leonard (1897), 68 Conn. 495, 37 Atl. 397; Tuells v. Torras (1901), 113 Ga. 691, 39 S. E. 455.] 1 Coles v. Soulsby, 21 Cal. 47, 50. [In Carpenter v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. (1895), 7 S. D. 584, 64 N. W. 1120, the court said: "To establish a plea of accord and satisfaction under the statute, it must not only appear that there was an agreement to accept, in full settlement of an obligation, something different from or less than that to which one of the parties thereto is entitled, but it must be shown that such agreement has been fully executed, and the obligation extinguished by the creditor's actual acceptance of the consideration specified in the agreement constituting the accord." See also Hale v. Grogan (1896), 99 Ky. 170, 35 S. W. 282; Van Housen v. Broehl (1899), 59 Neb. 48, 80 N. W. 260; Long v. Scanlan (1898), 105 Ga. 424, 31 S. E. 436; Oil Well Supply Co. v. Wolfe (1894), 127 Mo. 616, 30 S. W. 145.] 2 Cornell v. Dakin, 38 N. Y. 253, 256. See also Styles v. Fuller, 101 N. Y. 622. provision prohibiting banks from paying out notes not received by them at par;1 and a defence founded upon the plaintiff's failure to perform a contract collateral to the demand set up in the complaint, and upon which the liability of the defendant depended.2 1 Codd v. Rathbone, 19 N. Y. 37. 2 Blethen v. Blake, 44 Cal. 117; and the defence of irregularity on the part of the arbitrators in an action upon an award, Day v. Hammond, 57 N. Y. 479, 484. [Defences of New Matter. The following defences have been held to be new matter: Act of God: Pengra v. Wheeler (1893), 24 Ore. 532, 34 Pac. 354; Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Shaw (1901), 63 Neb. 380, 88 N. W. 508. Alteration of instrument: Mozley v. Reagan (1899), 109 Ga. 182, 34 S. E. 310; Ninman v. Suhr (1895), 91 Wis. 392, 64 N. W. 1035; Maguire v. Eichmeier (1899), 109 Ia. 301, 80 N. W. 395; Wall v. Muster's Ex'rs (1901), Ky., 63 S. W. 432. N. W. 847; Smith v. Continental Ins. Co. (1899), 108 Ia. 382, 79 N. W. 129; Latimer v. Woodmen (1901), 62 S. C. 145, 40 S. E. 155. Consent and connivance in action for criminal conversation: Morning v. Long (1899), 109 Ia. 288, 80 N. W. 390. Contract limiting liability: Register Printing Co. v. Willis (1894), 57 Minn. 93, 58 N. W. 825; Michalitschke Bros. v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (1897), 118 Cal. 683, 50 Pac. 847; Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co. v. Pace (1901), 69 Ark. 256, 63 S. W. 62. Contributory negligence: Hughes v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. (1894), 127 Mo. 447, 30 S. W. 127; McFarland v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. (1894), 125 Mo. 253, 28 S. W. 590; Hill v. Meyer Bros. Drug Co. (1897), 140 Mo. 433, 41 S. W. 909; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Copas (1894), 95 Ky. 460, 26 S. W. 179 (even where the petition negatives it); Hunter v. Grande Ronde Lumber Co. (1901), 39 Ore. 448, 65 Pac. 598; Martin v. Railway Co. (1897), 51 S. C. 150, 28 S. E. 303; Ford v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. (1898), 106 Ia. 85, 75 Bona fides: Maxwell v. Foster (1902), N. W. 650; Willis v. City of Perry (1894), 64 S. C. 1, 41 S. E. 776. Assumption of risk: Nicholaus v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. (1894), 90 Ia. 85, 57 N. W. 694; Faulkner v. Mammoth Min. Co. (1901), 23 Utah, 437, 66 Pac. 799; Dorsett v. Clement-Ross Mfg. Co. (1902), 131 N. C. 254, 42 S. E. 612. Champerty: Disbrow v. Board of Supervisors (1903), 119 Ia. 538, 93 N. W. 585; Potter v. Ajax Min. Co. (1900), 22 Utah, 273, 61 Pac. 999; Croco v. Oregon Short Line Co. (1898), 18 Utah, 311, 54 Pac. 985. Collateral security held by plaintiff Flint . Nelson (1894), 10 Utah, 261, 37 Pac. 479. Compromise: Pullins' Adm'r v. Smith (1899), 106 Ky. 418, 50 S. W. 833. Condition or exception in contract: Railway Officials, etc. Ass'n v. Drummond (1898), 56 Neb. 235, 76 N. W. 562; Farmers', etc. Ins. Co. v. Wiard (1899), 59 Neb. 451, 81 N. W. 312; Johnston v. Northwestern Live Stock Ins. Co. (1896), 94 Wis. 117, 68 N. W.868; Farmers', etc. Ins. Co. v. Peterson (1896), 47 Neb. 747, 66 : 92 Ia. 297, 60 N. W. 727; Union Stock But where contributory negligence is negatived in the complaint the issue is raised by a general denial: Denver, etc. R. R. Co. v. Smock (1897), 23 Colo. 456, 48 Pac. 681; Long v. Railway Co. (1897), 50 S. C. 49, 27 S. E. 531. Contra, Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Copas (1894), 95 Ky. 460, 26 S. W. 179. A general averment of contributory negligence is sufficient: Cogdell v. Wilmington, etc. R. R. Co. (1902), 130 N. C. 313, 41 S. E. 541; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Smith (1897), 101 Ky. 104, 42 S. W. 538. But see Cogdell v. Wilmington & § 589. * 713. Statute of Limitations. Different rules prevail in the different States in respect to pleading the Statute of W. R. R. Co. (1903), 132 N. C. 852, 44 S. E. 618. Corporation by-law: Angier v. Equitable Bldg. Ass'n (1899), 109 Ga. 625, 35 S. E. 64. Custom Eller v. Loomis (1898), 106 Ia. 276, 76 N. W. 686. Damages sustained by defendant: Harrington v. Foley (1899), 108 Ia. 287, 79 N. W. 64. Defect in registration of official bond: Warren v. Boyd (1897), 120 N. C. 56, 26 S. E. 700. Misnomer of defendant: Bird v. St. John's Episcopal Church (1899), 154 Ind. 138, 56 N. E. 129. Non-incorporation: Brady v. Nat. Supply Co. (1901), 64 O. St. 267, 60 N. E. 218. Privilege: Gilman v. McClatchy (1896), 111 Cal. 606, 44 Pac. 241. Ratification of altered contract: Erickson v. First Nat. Bank (1895), 44 Neb. 622, 62 N. W. 1078. Release: Rivers v. Blom (1901), 163 Mo. 442, 63 S. W. 812; Frank v. Cobban Double agency: Childs v. Ptomey (1895), (1897), 20 Mont. 168, 50 Pac. 423; Hale v. 17 Mont. 502, 43 Pac. 714. Facts suspending operation of statute: West v. Bishop (1900), 110 Ia. 410, 81 N. W. 696. Failure to save insured goods: Davis . Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (1895), 96 Ia. 70, 64 N. W. 687. Fire set by insured : Corkery v. Security Ins. Co. (1896), 99 Ia. 382, 68 N. W. 792; Heidenreich v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1894), 26 Ore. 70, 37 Pac. 64. Forfeiture: Power v. Sla (1900), 24 Mont. 243, 61 Pac. 468; Pickett v. Fidelity Co. (1901), 60 S. C. 477, 38 S. E. 160; Bishop v. Baisley (1895), 28 Ore. 119, 41 Pac. 937. Injury by fellow servant: Laying v. Mt. Shasta Mineral Spring Co. (1901), 135 Cal. 141, 67 Pac. 48, citing numerous cases: Peters v. McKay (1902), 136 Cal. 73, 68 Pac. 478; Bowling Green Stone Co. v. Capshaw (1901), Ky., 64 S. W. 507. See also Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Oyster (1899), 58 Neb. 1, 78 N. W. 359. But in Missouri it is held that this defence may be shown under a general denial: Kaminski v. Tudor Iron Works (1902), 167 Mo. 462, 67 S. W. 221. So in Wilson v. Railway Co. (1897), 51 S. C. 79, 28 S. E. 91Laches: Gay v. Havermale (1902), 27 Wash. 390, 67 Pac. 804; Town of Fairplay v. Board of Comm'rs (1901), 29 Colo. 57, 67 Pac. 152; French v. Woodruff (1898), 25 Colo. 339, 54 Pac. 1015. It was held in Wagner v. Sanders (1901), 62 S. C. 73, 39 S. E. 950, that laches might be set up by the court without being pleaded by the defendant. Liquidation: Kirkland v. Dryfus (1897), 103 Ga. 127, 29 S. E. 612. Grogan (1896), 99 Ky. 170, 35 S. W. 282. Rescission: Kennedy v. School Dist. (1898), 20 Wash. 399, 55 Pac. 567. Security held by plaintiff in an action by creditor's bill: O'Brien v. Stambach (1897), 101 Ia. 40, 69 N. W. 1133. Settlement: Hulbert v. New Nonpareil Co. (1900), 111 Ia. 490, 82 N. W. 928. Statute of frauds: Hillhouse v. Jennings (1901), 60 S. C. 373, 38 S. E. 599; Abba v. Smyth (1899), 21 Utah, 109, 59 Pac. 756; Bean v. Lamprey (1901), 82 Minn. 320, 84 N. W. 1016; Iverson v. Cirkel (1894), 56 Minn. 299, 57 N. W. 800; Tynon v. Despain (1896), 22 Colo. 240, 43 Pac. 1039; Crane v. Powell (1893), 139 N. Y. 379, 34 N. E. 911; Matthews v. Matthews (1897), 154 N. Y. 288, 48 N. E. 531; Sanger v. French (1898), 157 N. Y. 213, 51 N. E. 979; St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Hall (1903), — Ark. —, 74 S. W. 293; Thomas v. Churchill (1896), 48 Neb. 266, 67 N. W. 182. Unless the defendant raises the defence of the statute of frauds by answer or demurrer, he waives it: Crane v. Powell (1893), 139 N. Y. 379, 34 N. E. 911; Tift v. Wight & Weslosky Co. (1901), 113 Ga. 681, 39 S. E. 503; Wiseman v. Thompson (1895), 94 Ia. 607, 63 N. W. 346. Statutory bars: McCann v. Pennie (1893), 100 Cal. 547, 35 Pac. 158; Fischer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (1901), 167 N. Y. 178, 60 N. E. 431. Subrogation: Hunter v. Hunter (1900), 58 S. C. 382, 36 S. E. 743. Suicide: Latimer v. Woodmen (1901), 62 S. C. 145, 40 S. E. 155. Ultra Vires: Lewis r. Clyde S. S. Co. Limitations. In some, by reason of an express provision of their codes, the defence must always be specially set up in the answer, and can never be raised by demurrer, even though the averments of the complaint should show that the cause of action is barred.1 In others it may always be taken advantage of by demurrer whenever the complaint or petition discloses a cause of action which appears to be barred by the statute.2 The courts (1903), — N. C. —, 44 S. E. 666; Ferst's Sons v. Bank of Waycross (1900), 111 Ga. 229, 36 S. E. 773; Hart v. Phenix Ins. Co. (1901), 113 Ga. 859, 39 S E. 304; Citizens State Bank v. Pence (1900), 59 Neb. 579, 81 N. W. 623; Lewis v. Clyde S. S. Co. (1902), 131 N. C. 652, 42 S. E. 969; United States Mortgage Co. v. McClure (1902), 42 Ore. 190, 70 Pac. 543. Undue Influence: Kelly v. Perrault (1897), Idaho, 48 Pac. 45. Unreasonableness of ordinance: Bluedorn v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. (1893), 121 Mo. 258, 25 S. W. 943. Waiver: Rasmussen v. Levin (1901), 28 Colo. 448, 65 Pac. 94; Swearingen v. Lahner (1894), 93 Ia. 147, 61 N. W. 431; McCoy v. Iowa Ins. Co. (1898), 107 Ia. 80, 77 N. W. 529; Kahler v. Iowa, etc. Ins. Co. (1898), 106 Ia. 380, 76 N. W. 734. Want of funds: Netzer v. Crookston City (1894), 59 Minn. 244, 61 N. W. 21; McNulty v. City of New York (1901), 168 N. Y. 117, 61 N. E. 111; Hollings v. Bankers' Union (1902), 63 S. C. 192, 41 S. E. 90. Want of jurisdiction: Johnson v. Detrick (1899), 152 Mo. 243, 53 S. W. 891; Kahn v. Southern Bldg. Ass'n (1902), 115 Ga. 459, 41 S. E. 648; Kyd v. Exchange Bank (1898), 56 Neb. 557, 75 N. W. 524; Herbert v. Wortendyke (1896), 49 Neb. 182, 68 N. W. 350; Burlington Relief Dep't v. Moore (1897), 52 Neb. 719, 73 N. W. 15; Hurlburt v. Palmer (1894), 39 Neb. 158, 57 N. W. 1019; Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Peterson (1894), 41 Neb. 897, 60 N. W. 373; Eel River R. R. Co. v. State ex rel. (1895), 143 Ind. 231, 42 N. E. 617. Objection to the jurisdiction may be raised by answer in connection with matters in bar: Herbert v. Wortendyke (1896), 49 Neb. 182, 68 N. W. 350; Baker v. Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank (1902), 63 Neb. 801, 89 N. W. 269; Lowe v. Riley (1898), 57 Neb. 252, 77 N. W. 758. The sufficiency of the petition is not a test of jurisdiction: Dryden v. Parrotte (1901), 61 Neb. 339, 85 N. W. 287; Winningham v. Trueblood (1899), 149 Mo. 572, 51 S. W. 399.] Work done by member of family in an action for work and labor: Schroeder v. Schroeder (1903), Ia., 93 N. W. 78. 1 [Satterlund v. Beal (1903), — N. D. 95 N. W. 518.] 2 [Everett v. O'Leary (1903), Minn. -, 95 N. W. 901; Green's Adm'r v. Irvine (1902), Ky., 66 S. W. 278; Motes v. Gila Valley, etc. Ry. Co. (1902), Ariz., 68 Pac. 532; Wagener v. Boyce (1898), Ariz., 52 Pac. 1122; Smith v. Martin (1901), 135 Cal. 247, 67 Pac. 779; Bliss v. Sueath (1898), 119 Cal. 526, 51 Pac. 848; Fullerton v. Bailey (1898), 17 Utah, 85, 53 Pac. 1020; Smith v. Day (1901), 39 Ore. 531, 65 Pac. 1055; Pass v. Pass (1896), 98 Ga. 791, 25 S. E. 752; Cowhick v. Shingle (1894), 5 Wyo. 87, 37 Pac. 689; Huckelbridge v. Atchison, etc. Ry. Co. (1903), Kan., 71 Pac. 814; Lewis v. Duncan (1903), 66 Kan. 306, 71 Pac. 577; Best v. Zutavern (1898), 53 Neb. 604, 74 N. W. 64; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hemingway (1902), 63 Neb. 610, 88 N. W. 673; Osborn v. Portsmouth Nat. Bank (1899), 61 O. St. 427, 56 N. E. 197. But a general demurrer on the ground that no cause of action is stated will not raise the issue: Fullerton v. Bailey (1898), 17 Utah, 85, 53 Pac. 1020; Bliss v. Sneath (1898), 119 Cal. 526, 51 Pac. 848; Board v. First Presbyterian Church (1898), 19 Wash. 455, 53 Pac. 671; Joergenson v. Joergenson (1902), 28 Wash. 477, 68 Pac. 913. Contra, Cowhick v. Shingle (1894), 5 Wyo. 87, 37 Pac. 689; Eayrs v. Nason (1898), 54 Neb. 143, 74 N. W. 408. In ruling upon a demurrer on the of still other States occupy a middle ground between these extremes. If the provisions of the statute relied on are not absolute, but contain exceptions or provisos within which the case could possibly fall, and which might, therefore, prevent the bar of the statute from applying to the cause of action, the demurrer is never proper, because, although not so alleged, the case might come within the exception or proviso: the answer is then the only mode of presenting the defence. But if the particular provisions of the statute are absolute, and contain no such exceptions or provisos within which the case could possibly fall, a demurrer may be interposed when the objection appears upon the face of the plaintiff's pleading; but if it does not so appear, the defence must be set up by answer. § 590. * 714. Same Subject. In New York the rule is settled, and applied to all actions whether legal or equitable, that the effect of the Statute of Limitations as a defence can only be made available by an answer; that a demurrer can under no circumstances raise the issue; and finally, that the defence is new matter.2 In Indiana, if the provision of the statute invoked contains no exceptions or provisos, and it appears on the face of the complaint that the cause of action is barred, the defendant can demur; but when there are exceptions or provisos in the operative clause of the statute relied upon, the defence can only be set up by a special answer, and cannot be made ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, the enquiry must be confined to the face of the complaint and the indorsement of the sheriff upon the summons cannot be considered: Smith v. Day (1901), 39 Ore. 531, 65 Pac. 1055. Under the Wisconsin statutes, St., 1898, §§ 2649, 2651, a demurrer on this ground must specifically point out the particular section of the statute of limitations relied upon: Whereatt v. Worth (1900), 108 Wis. 291, 84 N. W. 441; Crowley v. Hicks (1898), 98 Wis. 566, 74 N. W. 348.] 1 [To the same effect see King v. Powell (1900), 127 N. C. 10, 37 S. E. 62.] 2 Sands v. St. John, 36 Barb. 628; Baldwin v. Martin, 14 Abb. Pr. N. s. 9. See also Dezengremel v. Dezengremel, 24 Hun, 457; Riley v. Corwin, 17 id. 597; Long v. Bank of Yanceyville, 81 N. C. 41; Hyde v. Lamberson, 1 Idaho, 536. In the following States, also, the defence cannot be taken by demurrer in North Carolina, Guthrie v. Bacon, 107 N. C. 337; in Arkansas, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 49 Ark. 253; in Iowa, State v. McIntire, 58 Iowa, 572; in Colorado, Hunt . Hayt, 15 Pac. 410; Barnes v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. Rep. 87. It may be taken by demurrer in Ohio, Seymour v. Pittsburg, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 44 Ohio St. 12; Douglas v. Corry, 46 Ohio St. 349; in Missouri, Heffernan v. Howell, 90 Mo. 344; in Wisconsin, Tucker v. Lovejoy, 73 Wis. 66; in Minnesota, Humphrey v. Carpenter, 39 Minn. 115; in Oregon, Spaur v. McBee, 19 Ore. 76; Davis v. Davis, 20 Ore. 78; in Washington, Wilt v. Buchtel, 2 Wash. Ter. 417. |