Case Title: Anderson v. Rexroad

Citation: 178 Kan. 227, 284 P.2d 1077

Docket Number: 39,748

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1955-06-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
178 Kan. 227 (1955)
284 P.2d 1077
ANNA C. ANDERSON and JO ANN BREWER, Appellees,
v.
L.W. REXROAD and J.M. REXROAD, a Co-partnership doing business as L.W. REXROAD AND SON, Appellants.
No. 39,748

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 11, 1955.
James P. Mize, of Salina, argued the cause, and C.L. Clark and Thomas M. Lillard, Jr., both of Salina, were with him on the briefs for the appellants.
Drew Hartnett, of Salina, argued the cause, and L.O. Bengston, of Salina, was with him on the briefs for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARVEY, C.J.:
This case was here before, 175 Kan. 676, the appeal being by the plaintiffs from an order of the court sustaining defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' petition. At that time the court analyzed the contract sued upon, considered every point presented by counsel, and held the petition did state a cause of action and reversed the judgment of the trial court. After our mandate went down to the district court the defendants filed an answer as follows:
A further paragraph alleged that if plaintiffs were damaged they had no legal interest in the action because they had collected insurance.
To this answer plaintiffs filed a motion to strike paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 because the question of liability had been determined in our former opinion, and alleged that plaintiffs' cause of action is upon contract, and that defendants' allegations in said paragraph are based upon tort, and such do not constitute a defense upon which evidence can be introduced; that said allegations are redundant, irrelevant and immaterial and calculated to prejudice the plaintiffs' rights upon the trial.
The court sustained the motion to strike, and defendants have appealed. *230 Assuming, without deciding, that the motion to strike is tantamount to a demurrer and that the ruling is appealable, we think the ruling is correct.
Under the general clause of the contract dealing with the responsibility of the contractor, clause 10 (a) provides:
and under the same clause (t) it provides:
So, the defenses attempted to be pleaded by these paragraphs of the answer do not constitute a defense to the action. More than that, Kansas Power and Light Company is not a party to this action and any complaint which defendants have against that company cannot be litigated in this case.
The result is that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.