Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/303

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

an unveri.fied general denial, and the court held that under the pleadings the defendant was estopped from showing that the foreman of the bridge gang and the superintendent of construction were not in its employ. This ruling was based upon par. 3986 of the Oklahoma General Statutes of 1893, c. 66, �8, which provides that "in all actions allegations . . of any appointment or authority . . . shall be taken as true unless the denial of the same be verified by the ai?davit of the party, his agent or attorney." Defendant also sought to prove that plaintiff was not in its employ; that it in fact did not exist at the time of the accident; that th? contract for the construction work was taken by a partnership, .McCabe & Steen. The answer of defendant alleged that the injury to plaintiff "was due to one of the risks assumed by the plaintiff in his contract of employment with this defendant." The general denial in the answer as originally filed was in terms of "the.allegations contained in the petition in manner and form as therein set forth." During the progress of the trial the defendant asked leave to amend by striking out the words "in manner and form as therein set forth," to which application the plaintiff objected, saying: "As far as 'the general denial being sufficient to pe?nnlt the defendant, admitting that it is the proper defendant, to raise further issues as far as it not being gnilty of any negligence, admitting that it was the defendant and was doing the con- tracting work there, why we don't care anything about it; but we do object to their being permitted to amend their answer in any way so as to raise the issue that this defendant is not the defendant with whom the plaintiff contracted and who was doing this work." The court thereupon announced its decision to neither per- mit nor deny the defendant leave to amend at that time, saying:' "The COURT: We will go ahead now and treat this answer as a general denial at this time, and will reserve my ruling on your motion until I see further; I will fix the terms later."