Court Opinion

ID: 9671934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:45:45.921653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:13.150301
License: Public Domain

Gehl, J.
{dissenting). I agree that it has been definitely established that an order striking portions of an answer is not appealable. I do not agree, however, that we cannot or should not in this case treat the motion as a demurrer as defendants request we do.
“A motion to strike out in its entirety a separate defense is, in its legal effect, a demurrer.” Williams v. Journal Co. 211 Wis. 362, 365, 247 N. W. 435.
The defense which was stricken by the trial court is contained in its entirety in paragraph 6 of the answer. It is not seriously contended that it does not state a defense, at least pro tanto. It lacks nothing except the few words which would expressly denomipate it as a separate defense. In Paraffine Companies v. Kipp, 219 Wis. 419, 421, 263 N. W. 84, we said:
“Even a general demurrer to specific paragraphs of an answer, where no single paragraph purports to contain within itself a completely stated defense to the complaint or any part thereof, is wholly ineffective to raise an issue of law. A general demurrer must be directed to the entire answer, or to some separately stated portion thereof purporting to constitute a defense.”
In the instant case a single paragraph purports to contain within itself a completely stated defense to the complaint. It supplies what was lacking in the Paraffine Companies Case.
Defendants’ failure to state in express terms that they were pleading the matter a.s a separate defense does not require us to treat it differently. As the court said in the Paraffine Companies Case, “the question is not one of nomenclature, but of substance.”
*214The pleading should be tested by the liberal rule of the statute that “in the construction of a pleading for the purpose of determining its effect its allegations shall be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties,” sec. 263.27, Stats. A pleading must be held good “though the allegations be in form uncertain, defective, and incomplete.” Palmersheim v. Hertel, 179 Wis. 291, 299, 191 N. W. 567.
Sec. 263.13 (2), Stats., provides that the answer must contain,
“A statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counterclaim, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition.”
Sec. 263.16, Stats., provides that “the defendant may set forth, by answer, all defenses ... he has . . . ; they must be separately stated.” Neither section requires that the separate defenses be labeled as such. The matter of designation or the lack of it was not considered important in Kipp v. Gates, 126 Wis. 566, 105 N. W. 947, where a demurrer was interposed to a portion of an answer alleged “as a further defense,” and the court said the expression “obviously means a separate and additional defense.”
Sec. 263.14 (2), Stats., requires that a counterclaim must be pleaded “as such;” that it must be so denominated. Voechting v. Grau, 55 Wis. 312, 13 N. W. 230. It seems to me to be significant that when the legislature deemed it necessary to require a label upon a pleading it did so in clear language. No such direction is contained in either sec. 263.13 or sec. 263.16.
Under the circumstances here presented we should treat plaintiff’s motion as a demurrer to paragraph 6 of the answer and deny their motion to dismiss the appeal.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Currie and Mr. Justice Steinle concur in this dissent.