Utter v. Nelligan

upon the premises of the value of $112, under an alleged agreement with the plaintiff’s agents to pay him therefor. The agents denied that there was any such agreement except for the allowance of one month’s rent for some slight repairs that he was permitted to make. On September 4, 1894, the defendant brought suit against the plaintiff’s agents to recover for such repairs. The agents set up a general denial, payment, and offset for one mouth’s rent, and upon the trial in justice’s court, on September 24, 1894, a verdict was rendered for the defendant therein. On the 26th of the same month, this action was brought in justice’s court to recover for six and one-half month’s rent. The defendant set up a general denial, payment, and a counterclaim for the same repairs as those upon which he brought action against the plaintiff’s. agents. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. In October, 1894, the defendant appealed both of said actions to the Tompkins county court. The action against the plaintiff’s agents was first tried in that court, and resulted in a verdict of thirty dollar’s for the plaintiff therein, which sum, with costs, was paid by the plaintiff in this action on March 9, 1895. In the following May, this action came on for trial before the county court. On the trial the plaintiff proved his claim, and rested. The defendant then proposed to prove his counterclaim, when it was conceded that it was the same claim as that upon which the defendant recovered against the plaintiff’s agents, and which was paid by the plaintiff. The defendant, however, objected tó the plaintiff’s proving such payment, upon the ground that there was no supplemental pleading which gave notice of that defense to the counterclaim. This objection was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The plaintiff then proved that the action against his agents was tried, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in that action, who was the defendant in this, and that it was paid by the plaintiff in this action to the defendant’s attorney. After this proof was admitted, the defendant offered proof of his counterclaim, which was objected to by the plaintiff, and excluded by the court. The court thereupon directed a verdict for the plaintiff for $19.50.

It seems that upon a new trial in county court on an appeal from a justice’s judgment, the case should be tried upon the issues formed by the pleadings in the justice’s court. Becker v. Barnum, 19 Wkly. Dig. 94 ; Longrill v. Downey, 7 N. Y. Supp. 503 ; Thompson v. Pine, 5 Hun, 647 ; Hayes v. Kedzie, 11 Hun, 577 ; Reno v. Millspaugh, 14 Hun, 229 . Moreover, it was but just that the parties upon a retrial should be allowed to introduce the same proof in the county court under the pleadings as they would have Been allowed to introduce upon the trial in a justice’s court. If the last trial had been in a justice’s court, no reply being necessary, the plaintiff would have been entitled to prove that the defendant’s counterclaim had been paid. We think tbe same rule should apply upon a retrial of an action in the county court

commenced in a justice’s court. In other words, we think that the same proof, under the pleadings, should he admissible in the county court as would have been admissible in a justice’s court, and that, under the Code, a party is not required to amend his pleadings in the county court where the proof offered would have been admissible in a justice’s court under the pleadings as they stood. Hence, our conclusion is that, under the pleadings, the plaintiff was entitled to prove that the counterclaim set up by the defendant had been paid; that, under the circumstances of the case, it was not reversible error to reject the defendant’s evidence as to such counterclaim; and that the court properly directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment and- order affirmed, with costs.

All concur.