Opinion ID: 1828589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The defendant argues that the plaintiffs should have appealed from the order sustaining the demurrer, and not having done so, this court has no jurisdiction to review the subsequent judgment dismissing the complaint on its merits. An order sustaining a demurrer is an appealable order as provided in sec. 274.33 (3), Stats. This is true whether or not the order sustaining the demurrer allows time to serve an amended complaint. This court, in Dick v. Shawano Municipal Hospital (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 430, 433, 168 N. W. 2d 824, held: ... The demurrers on behalf of the doctor and hospital were sustained but with an attached provision that plaintiff could file and serve an amended complaint within thirty days. To the extent that these orders were a granting of leave to amend pleadings, they would not be appealable. To the extent that such orders were a final disposition, the sustaining of a demurrer, they are appealable. ... It is only that part of the order allowing the amendment of pleading which is not appealable. [1] Although plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment and not the order sustaining the demurrer, the order can be reviewed under the provisions of sec. 274.34. Sec. 274.34, Stats., provides: ... Upon an appeal from a judgment, and upon a writ of error, the supreme court may review any intermediate order which involves the merits and necessarily affects the judgment, appearing upon the record. An appeal from the judgment brings up for review the order sustaining the demurrer upon which it is based. [2] The judgment dismissing the action on its merits disposes of the order sustaining the demurrer. This court has jurisdiction in the instant case.