Case Name: MILLS POWER CO. v. MOHAWK HYDRO-ELECTRIC CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-03-23
Citations: 128 N.Y.S. 810
Docket Number: 
Parties: MILLS POWER CO. v. MOHAWK HYDRO-ELECTRIC CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 128
Pages: 810–812

Head Matter:
MILLS POWER CO. v. MOHAWK HYDRO-ELECTRIC CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
March 23, 1911.)
1. Pleading (§§ 214, 221 )—Demurrer—Effect of Not Withdrawing.
Where a separate defense in the answer went to the entire cause of action set up in the complaint by not withdrawing its demurrer thereto, plaintiff admitted all the facts set forth therein, and the effect of overruling the demurrer, thus adjudging the defense good, was not changed by the court’s statement that he could not determine whether the defense was good or bad without a knowledge of the circumstances.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 525-534, 567; Dec. Dig. §§ 214, 221. ]
\2. Pleading (§ 213 )—Demurrer—Nature of.
\ When a demurrer is interposed to a pleading, an issue of law is presented, and it must be decided either by overruling or sustaining the demurrer.
[Ed.'Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 485; Dec. Dig. § 213. ]
' Kellogg and Betts, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term and Trial Term, Fulton County.
Action by the Mills Power Company against the Mohawk HydroElectric Company. From an interlocutory judgment overruling a demurrer to the answer and from a final judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and demurrer sustained, with leave to amend the answer. "
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, SEWELL, HOUGHTON, and BETTS, JJ.
M. H. Nellis, for appellant.
Hugo Kohlman, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HOUGHTON, J.
The defendant by its answer set up a separate and distinct defense. -The plaintiff demurred to this defense on the ground that the facts stated were insufficient in law to constitute a defense. The issue of law thus joined came on for trial, and the court rendered an interlocutory judgment overruling the demurrer. The plaintiff did not withdraw its demurrer or ask to do soj but proceeded to trial of the action with the demurrer still standing. The trial court held that inasmuch as the demurrer had not been withdrawn, and the court had held the answer a complete one to plaintiff's cause of action, he could do nothing else than dismiss the complaint, which he did. In this he was entirely correct. The separate de fense went to the entire cause of action set forth in plaintiff's complaint, and by not withdrawing its demurrer thereto the plaintiff admitted all the facts set forth therein. National Contracting Company v. Hudson River Water Power Co., 110 App. Div. 133, 97 N. Y. Supp. 92. The effect of the overruling of the demurrer and thus adjudging the defense to be a good one was not changed by the statement of the learned trial court in his decision that the court could not determine whether the defense was good or bad without a knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the giving of the deed and the granting of the easement relied upon as a defense. [2] When a demurrer is interposed to a pleading, an issue of law is presented, and it must be decided either by overruling or sustaining the demurrer. A pleading demurred to is either good or bad as it stands.
The case of National Contracting Company v. Hudson River Water Power Company, 170 N. Y. 439, 63 N. E. 450, and 192 N. Y. 209, 84 N. E. 965, is not authority to the contrary. On the first appeal in that -case the demurrer to the separate defense was held to have been properly overruled. On the trial of the case however, the facts developed showed that the defense, although good on its face, was not effectual, and could not be invoked by the defendant. It was urged upon the court on the last appeal that, it having once said the defense was good, it must stand by that decision and call it good notwithstanding the facts showed it unavailable to the defendant. This contention was, of course, repudiated. The court explained that, although the defense was good on its face, it was not good in view of the facts developed. It often happens that pleadings good on their face are insufficient in the light of proven facts.
In the present case, however, the plaintiff has appealed from the final judgment dismissing its complaint, and has brought up for review the interlocutory judgment overruling its demurrer. We are thus called upon to decide whether the demurrer to the separate defense was properly overruled. The court, although differing as to the practice, is unanimous in the opinion that the defense is not a good one. The defense not being good, the demurrer to it should have been sustained. This therefore calls for a reversal of the interlocutory judgment, and with it falls the final judgment which was founded upon it.
The final and interlocutory judgments should be reversed without costs, and the demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to the defendant to amend its answer upon paying, such costs within 30 days. All concur, except KELLOGG and BETTS, JJ., who dissent.