, 1892-04-11
FOR RENT DUE.
JUDGMENT in A PIERCE COUNTY
CASE REVERSED.
Important Points i'm the lease of
Property In the City of Tacoma.
The supreme COURTS Opinion.
ICnnclnded from SaturdaY.l

The Supreme Courts Opinion.
TConcluded from Saturday.
The plaintiffs demurred to the answe
on the ground that it did not contain fact
sufficient to constitute defense Th
court sustained the demurrer, and the de
PENDANTS appealed.
The respondents contend that the answe
is frivolous, eyasive and uncertain, ant
states only conclusions of law, and tina
the demurrer was rightly sustained. They
contend that as matter OF fact the
premises never were given up, and thai
there was no new or other agreement be-
tween the parties, and argue that there il
a studied attempt upon the part of the
pleader to come as near alleging a yielding
up of the premises, and a subsequent
agreement to relet as is possible without
actually saying SO in the answer, which
under our practice has to be verified, anC
they insist that this bad faith upon the
part of the pleader is apparent from the
answer itself We cannot arrive at this
conclusion The answer contains some
superfuous matter but this can only be
reached by motion, it is not one OF the
defects for which a demurrer will lie. The
statute, Sec. IS Of the 1881 code, is as fol.
lows:
''Sec. 85. Sham, frivolous and irrelevant
answers and defenses may be stricken out
on motion, and upon such terms as the
court NAV in its discretion impose"
And Sec. 95 provides:
eff irrelevant or redundant matter be in
serted in pleading it may be stricken out
on motion of any person aggr1eyed thereby
and when the allegations of a pleading are
so indefinite or uncertain that the precise
nature of the charge or defense is not appa-
rent, the court may require the pleading to
be made definite and certain by amend
ment, or may dismiss the same."
AS to the rule of construction to be rec
ognized, section "a provides that: "In the
construction of pleading for the purpose
of determining its effect its allegations
shall be literally Construed
All prior forms of pleadlngs were abol-
ished by the code, and it prescribed what
they should be thereafter, and also the rule
by which their sufficiency should be de-
Wash. Terry. ITO, in speaking of the COM
plaint in that case toWhich demurrer had
been interposed Turner, J says;
1.-The aVerments of this pleading are
vague and indefinite, and It'll defective in
other respects; yet when bolstered by the
rule of liberal construction commanded by
the code, we think we discern a cause of
action. "A suitor is no longer to be turned
out of court, if by making all reasonable
intendments in his favor enough can be
seized hold of in hisspleadings to show that
he has rights which ought to be enforced.
He may be required on motion to conform
his statement to the rules of good plead
ing, and if he refuse, may be turned out of
court; but as against demurrer, the Of
flee of which is to raise substantial issue
on the law of the case, and not on the law
of practice and pleading, evidentiary facts,
and even interences from averments
amounting to mere conclusions Of law,
will be considered in his favor 7
In Trustees VS.. Odlin, 8 Ohio st. 296, un-
similar GtatntOTu mr.
Swan, j., in rendering the opinion said:
The sufficiency of pleadings, under the
code, as to certainty, precision, dehniteness
and consistency Of allegation, and indeed
in respect of every other variety of defect
of allegations which does not amount to
such an absolute omission of factas to CON
stitute no ground of action or defense,
must be taken advantage of or objected to
by motion under the above provision of the
code, and can afford no ground for de-
murrer or assignment Of error"
a "If pleadings shall be in ordinary
language, as contradistinguished from legal
technical language, they must be construed
as meaning what is generally understood
by ordinary language, and hence there can
be no established technical mode Of stating
a cause of action or defense. So, too, the
rules of the common law, as to the suffi-
cheney of pleadings, are abrogated, and in
their place is substituted the few and sim
pie rules Of the code.'
See People VS.. Ryden, 12 N. Y. 433. Slat-
terry VS.. Hall, 43 Cal. 191.
Under our practice the old rule that a
pleading must be most strongly construed
against the pleader is not recognized. 1t
must be literally construed with an aim to
arrive at substantial justice between the
parties. This answer alleges that it was
conceded by all the parties that the lease
was void that they surrendered the prem
ises to the plaintiffs; that new agreement
was made to occupy at fair and reason
able rental, and that they re entered there
under. This alleges more than is really
necessary to constitute defense. An
agreement setting aside this lease and the
making of a new agreement would be
sufficient without actually vaeating the
premises and moving in again under the
new arrangement.
See Woods Landlord and Tenant, vol. 2,
page /, ,102; 10 American and English Enc.
of law, page 1858, h.; Title surrender by
agreement, and authorities cited; Enyear
VS.. Davis, II Neb., 228.
And it is immaterial whether the words
surrendered and re-entered mean an actual
moving out Of the premises and moving in
again, or not. Respondent contends that
they are mere conclusions Of law, and that
the pieader should have stated the facts
We have already seen that demurrer
would not reach such defect. But we dc
not agree with his view of this answer
When the defendants allege that they sur
rem dered the premises we think it means
that they abandoned them and yielded up
the possession thereof especially when
taken in connection with the clause that
they re-entered under another agreement
with the plaintiffs. This looks to us like a
plain and concise statement Of facts not
even obnoxious to a motion. If the state
ment that the lease was conceded bya all the
parties to be void, and that the defendants
gave up the possession of the premises
thereuunder, that new agreement
was made between the parties under which
they re-entered needed any further sup
port it can be found as against this de
murrer in the eyidentiary matter pleaded
wherein it is alleged that the plaintiffs
subsequent to the making of the new
agreement, insisted upon the sum of $4Ol
month as a reasonable rental, that this
was too large sum, and that the plaintiffs
knew it to be so, but made the demand
therefor because they knew it would be o.
great damage to the defendants to agair
surrender the premises.
The judgment is reversed and the cause
remanded for further proceedings.
SCOTT, ].
We concur: Anders, e. j., Dunbar, j.
A Lumberman's Rendezvous.
This term might be applied to Stevens
49,. Ill