Antonio 1954, writ ref’d). In this cause, Johnson specifically pleaded that “[njeither party ever terminated said contract or gave the other notice of termination,” and he does not suggest that evidence bearing on the nonpleaded matters was objected to for the lack of affirmative pleadings. 6 . There are views that the substitution of a party to a contract is a discharge of the original contract, Williams v. Maryland Glass Corporation, 134 Md. 320, 106 A. 755, 757-58 (1919), or, stated differently, is the consent for a separate contract which releases the replaced party from the original contract. Contractors Manage. Corp. v. McDowell-Kelly, 136 Ga.App. 116, 220 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1975). But cf. Minder & Jorgenson Land Co. v. Brustuen, 26 S.D. 38, 127 N.W. 546, 547 (1910) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Parenthetically, it is noted that
holding that when a contract is signed by one party but not the other the manifestation of consent by the nonsigning party is sufficient to bind that party holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees holding that the substitution of a party acts as a modification discharging the replaced party and substituting the new party with the same rights and liabilities holding that the court should look to the actions of the relevant party and determine whether that party fails to insist on its contractual rights or acts inconsistently with such rights holding that in a situation where the police have probable cause to arrest one party and reasonably mistake a second party for that first party the arrest of the second party is still a valid arrest