Title: Otto v. Swartz

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

186 Kan. 689 (1960)
352 P.2d 12
FLORENCE H. OTTO, Appellee,
v.
HOWARD A. SWARTZ, Trustee of Frank J. Swartz Trust, Appellant.
No. 41,838

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 14, 1960.
Robert T. Stephan, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Harry W. Saums, Herbert H. Hopper, and Eugene L. Pirtle, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
Rodney H. Busey, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Lester C. Arvin and Kay K. Arvin, both of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
*690 The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, C.J.:
This is an appeal from an order and judgment overruling a demurrer to a petition.
Plaintiff commenced the action in the district court of Sedgwick County by filing a petition the provisions of which, so far as pertinent to the issue involved, read:
..............
..............
..............
*691 Following the foregoing allegations, and others omitted because they are not regarded as essential to a decision of the order and judgment appealed from, the petition prays, among other things, for an accounting of the trust by Howard A. Swartz and that he be permanently removed from his office as trustee.
So far as they relate to the powers, duties and obligations of the trustee in his administration of the trust estate important provisions of the inter vivos trust agreement, identified as Exhibit "A" and attached to and made a part of the petition, read:
"THIRD: ...
..............
..............
After the filing of the petition the defendant attacked that pleading by a motion to strike and to make more definite and certain which was overruled in all particulars. Later a second motion to make the petition more definite and certain was overruled.
Subsequently defendant demurred to the petition on grounds (1) the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or the subject of the action; (2) that the plaintiff had no legal capacity to sue; (3) that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and (4) that such pleading showed upon its face that plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations. Upon presentation of the demurrer the defendant announced in open court that he relied only on paragraph Three thereof. Thereupon, after consideration of the demurrer on that basis, the court found that the petition contained facts sufficient to state a cause of action and overruled the demurrer. Following that action defendant perfected the instant appeal under a notice of appeal reciting that he appealed from the order and decision overruling the demurrer, and from all orders made and entered in the cause. And, in this court, he prosecutes the appeal under a single specification of error charging that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer and holding that the petition stated a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Notwithstanding the limitations of his notice of appeal and specification of error appellant presents arguments to the effect the trial court erred in overruling his motion to make the petition more definite and certain and to strike certain of its allegations and in overruling his second motion to make the same pleading more definite and certain. We are not concerned with claims of error respecting the propriety of these rulings for, under our decisions, when rulings of such character are not particularly specified in *693 the notice of appeal they are not subject to appellate review. See, e.g., Pennington v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 180 Kan. 638, 305 P.2d 849; O'Brien v. Jones, 183 Kan. 170, 326 P.2d 257; Little v. Butner, 186 Kan. 75, 348 P.2d 1022. Moreover it is to be noted that, even if they had been included in the notice of appeal, such rulings would not be here subject to review because the trial court's action with respect thereto is not specified as error (Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517, 313 P.2d 233; Russell v. American Rock Crusher Co., 181 Kan. 891, 898, 317 P.2d 847; Zinn v. Hill Lumber & Investment Co., 176 Kan. 669, 272 P.2d 1106).
We are not disposed to here labor contentions advanced by the parties as to whether the involved petition is subject to a strict or liberal construction in view of the rulings overruling the motions to make more definite and certain. Much has been written on that subject and in all fairness it should be said that upon examination of the petition and after a review of our decisions (See, e.g., Morris v. Dines Mining Co., 174 Kan. 216, 221, 222, 256 P.2d 129; Parrack v. Wittman, 180 Kan. 193, 302 P.2d 1005; Marshall v. Duncan, 182 Kan. 540, 322 P.2d 762; Coe v. DeMars, 184 Kan. 780, 782, 339 P.2d 72; and cases there cited) we are inclined to the view that under the existing facts and circumstances this is a case where the petition fairly apprised the adversary (appellant) of the nature of the claim and is therefore subject to liberal construction, notwithstanding the overruling of such motions. Indeed support for such a conclusion is to be found in the appellant's own brief where it is said "this is not an action to set aside the Trust Agreement, but is an action to remove the trustee for failure to perform his duties." Be that as it may, it is neither necessary nor required that we resort to liberal construction in order to dispose of the instant appeal.
It suffices to say that when strictly construed the petition (see Paragraph Eight heretofore quoted) in plain and concise language charges appellant with acts and conduct which, if established by competent evidence, violate his duties and obligations as trustee under the Seventh Paragraph (also heretofore quoted) of the trust agreement. Therefore, since for purposes of ruling on the demurrer all well-pleaded allegations of the petition must be accepted as true, such paragraph, standing alone, is sufficient to state a cause of action against him for his removal from that position and is all that is required to uphold the trial court's action in overruling the demurrer. The universal rule of this jurisdiction is that if a petition *694 states a cause of action on any theory, even though it contains other allegations which do not do so, it is sufficient to withstand a general demurrer (Richey v. Darling, 183 Kan. 642, 331 P.2d 281; and authorities cited at page 644 of its opinion; Dugger v. State Highway Commisson, 185 Kan. 317, 319, 342 P.2d 186).
Finally it should be stated that in reaching the conclusions heretofore announced we have disregarded, not overlooked, arguments advanced by the parties touching the merits of the cause. Whether appellee can sustain the burden of proving the allegations of her petition or appellant establish defenses with respect thereto in a trial, after joinder of issues by proper pleadings, on the merits of the cause are not matters with which we are presently concerned. All that is required for purposes of this appeal, under the limited issues involved, is to ascertain and hold  as we do  that under the facts, conditions and circumstances set forth in the petition the trial court did not err in overruling a general demurrer to that pleading. This means its order and judgment must be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
WERTZ, J., not participating.