Schlyen

By complaint in the usual form the respondent in this action alleged that Joseph Schlyen and Michael H. Brodsky were copartners doing business. under the firm name of Palm Drug Company; that individually and in the name of the company they executed two promissory notes, payable to the plaintiff, for the amounts of which, less certain deductions, judgment was prayed. The defendant Schlyen having answered, a motion for judgment upon the pleadings was interposed by the plaintiff, which was granted, from which said judgment defendant appeals.

It is at _ first contended that appellant’s answer joined issues upon material allegations of the complaint by way of denials and affirmative defense, upon the merits. A second ground assigned for reversal restates the first, by urging that the pleadings show that the defendant haw created an issue entitling him to his day in court upon a good and legal defense.

As already observed, the plaintiff alleged the existence of the copartnership, the execution of the notes, which were set forth in full, the nonpayment of one, and tiiv payment of $334.32 and interest to a date specified, upon another in the principal sum of $480.57,, which bore…