Opinion ID: 1720702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Peachtree's Appeal.

Text: Peachtree argues the pleadings and documents filed in support of its motion for summary judgment demonstrate that Miller has suffered no damages and therefore it was entitled to summary judgment on the note action. In Zimmer v. Daun (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 627, 630, 631, 162 N. W. 2d 626, we pointed out the summary judgment statute (sec. 270.635) does not confer a right on a party but vests a discretionary power in the trial court to grant summary judgment when it believes a summary disposition of the case is warranted. See also Schuster v. Germantown Mut. Ins. Co. (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 447, 162 N. W. 2d 129. In this case Miller has stated he has a defense of breach of contract because the note must be read in conjunction with other contracts entered into contemporaneously as a single indivisible contract. See O'Connor Oil Corp. v. Warber (1966), 30 Wis. 2d 638, 141 N. W. 2d 881. The sufficiency of this answer is objected to since it contains no allegation of damages. See Walter Laev Used Cars, Inc. v. Olkowski (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 306, 130 N. W. 2d 780, and sec. 403.408, Stats. Whether the defense is a pro tanto failure of consideration or an offset for damages are questions not now decided but should be determined. In view of the complicated nature of facts and of any defense, we think the trial court was correct in denying summary judgment. The case is not one to be summarily disposed of without trial. By the Court. Order affirmed; costs denied to both parties.