Gertrude M. Converse, of Phoenix, for appellant.
J. Hubert Smith, of Phoenix, for appellees.
Stanford, Justice. La Prade, C. J., and Udall, Phelps and De Concini, JJ., concur.
[71 Ariz. 2] Appellant, plaintiff in the court below, brought an action against appellees, based on an open account, which account was duly supported by affidavit. Appellees thereupon filed an answer, in the form of a denial, and also a counter-claim, erroneously labeled a cross-complaint. The question here involves the sufficiency of the answer and verification thereon, under sections 21-430 and 23-313, A.C.A.1939.
The answer contained the following denial matter: "Defendants deny that they
owe plaintiff $ 442.43 as alleged in said complaint, or any sum whatsoever." (Emphasis supplied.) The remainder of the matter in the answer, set out facts surrounding the transaction involving the account, and also laid the groundwork for the counter-claim.
Attached to the answer and counter-claim, was a verification, the body of which reads:
"Ray Thomas, being first duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:
"That he is one of the defendants in the above-entitled action; that he has read the foregoing answer and cross-complaint and knows the contents thereof; that said answer and cross-complaint and allegations therein set forth are true in substance and in fact."
[71 Ariz. 3] Before the trial, appellant made oral motion for judgment on the pleadings, which motion was denied. The case ...