Boggess v. Davis, 34 Ind. 82; Mooney v. Musser, 34 Ind. 373. Counsel for the three moving defendants cite Eastenes v. Adams, 93 Colo. 258, 25 P.2d 741, and urge that it is controlling here; but we do not think it applicable. The limitation of that case is well stated by Mr. Justice Knous in Midwest Fuel Timber Co. v. Steele, 111 Colo. 458, 142 P.2d 1011. There, we announced that the "prevailing rule" is that stated in 41 American Jurisprudence, page 533, section 355, which reads: "On a motion to strike on the ground that a pleading is sham, it is not the province of the court to determine the veracity of the respective parties; that is a question of fact to be determined on the trial.