Court Opinion

ID: 9539350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:02:48.09323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:45.859117
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, J.
(dissenting): In my judgment the appeal should not be dismissed. G. S. 1949, 60-717 and 60-718 expressly provide that the appellant could demur to each of the separate defenses alleged by the executor, and reply to the residue of the answer. Under the statute (G. S. 1949, 60-3302, second) and our decisions (Sanik v. Shryock Realty Co., 156 Kan. 641, 645, 135 P. 2d 545, and Bartholomew v. Guthrie, 71 Kan. 705, 81 P. 2d 491) a ruling on a demurrer, whether sustained or overruled, is appealable, and where, as here, it timely reaches this court through proper channels, is entitled to consideration on the merits without regard to the status of the action in the district court (Dalton v. Hill, 169 Kan. 388, 389, 219 P. 2d 710), subject, however, to the rule announced in Harmon v. James, 146 Kan. 205, 69 P. 2d 690, and subsequent cases which is not here involved.
With the exception of striking the 7th paragraph from the executor’s answer involving the defense of an election of remedy, the motion to strike was overruled in its entirety. A demurrer is a pleading (G. S. 1949, 60-703), while a motion is not (G. S. 1949, 60-720; Dole Irrigation Supply v. Knackstedt, 186 Kan. 143, 348 P. 2d 602). In view of the foregoing authorities it is unnecessary to determine whether the order overruling the motion to strike was a final order (G. S. 1949, 60-3303) from which an appeal could have been taken on or before July 10, 1960. I do not reach that point since, as previously indicated, the order overruling the separate demurrers is expressly made appealable by G. S. 1949, 60-3302, second, and the appeal was timely perfected on July 26, 1960.
The court’s opinion cites Rockhill, Administrator v. Tomasic, 186 Kan. 599, 352 P. 2d 444, and Weiskirch v. Lux, 154 Kan. 464, 119 P. 2d 451, as authority that the appeal was not timely perfected. While I am in accord with what was said and held in them, it is *518my opinion they do not control the question presented. Rockhill did not involve a ruling on a demurrer, and Weiskirch held that an appeal from an order requesting the district court to reconsider its order granting a new trial did not extend the time within which an appeal may be perfected from the final order which granted the new trial generally.
Time does not permit an extended discussion of the merits of the demurrers to the separate defenses of the executor, but it is sufficient to say the demurrers should have been sustained to each defense upon the ground that each failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a legal defense.