Court Opinion

ID: 9865082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:22:59.904728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:10.826655
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Hilliaed
dissenting.
Considering the record, I think the opinion of the court decides for the parties a question not fairly involved. It is clear that in the district court plaintiff did not object formally to the ruling striking parts of her complaint, and in this court she definitely casts the point aside.
On presentation here, counsel says: ‘ ‘ The plaintiff in error will confine her argument in this brief to a general discussion of the error’ assigned in her assignment of errors numbered II, to wit: ‘ The court erred in sustaining the demurrer of the defendant in error. ’ ’ ’ Describing the complaint to which the trial court sustained a general demurrer for want of facts, counsel uses the following* lang*uag*e, a portion of which I italicize: “The complaint of the plaintiff in error, ’ ’ says counsel, ‘ ‘ after irrelevant matters were stricken, * * *, reads as follows : ’ ’ He then sets out the complaint, omitting the stricken portions.
It will be noted that plaintiff’s counsel invokes our *552consideration of the sufficiency of the complaint only in the form to which the demurrer was sustained-below, and complains of nothing else. In such circumstances I cannot find justification for restoring to the complaint matter which defendant successfully contended, below was irrelevant, and to which contention plaintiff, by use of the language above emphasized, here subscribes. Observance of well -ordered practice would require affirmance of the judgment.
Me. Justice Campbell concurs in this opinion.