Court Opinion

ID: 9865248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:28:47.63559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:06.472161
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Bouck,
specially concurring.
The following allegation appears in the complaint of the plaintiff (defendant in error here): “That now, and at the times hereafter mentioned, Sedgwick county, in the state of Kansas, comprised the 18th Judicial Court of Sedgwick county, Kansas, and was a court of general jurisdiction, duly created and organized by the laws of said state.”
The answer, amended answer and second amended answer of the defendants (plaintiffs in error) each put that allegation in issue. They each also included a general demurrer to the complaint. In spite of this state of the pleadings, the plaintiff failed to amend what is palpably a defective complaint notwithstanding the allegation in the paragraph following the one above quoted, as to recovery of a judgment in ‘ ‘ said Sedgwick County District Court in said state of Kansas.” Nor is the complaint *354aided in this respect by the record. Being insufficient, the complaint must be amended if the case is to proceed. Moreover, the second amended answer, duly verified, includes some apparently meritorious defenses. On these, I think, in the interest of justice, the defendants ought to have the opportunity of being heard.
For the reasons given I concur in reversing the judgment and remanding for further appropriate action in the court below. However, it seems to me unnecessary, in the disposition of this case, to consider section 71 of our Code of Civil Procedure (C. L. ’21, p. 115), mentioned in the opinion of the court. The section reads in full as follows: “In pleading a judgment, or other determination of a court or officer of especial jurisdiction, it shall not be necessary to state the facts conferring jurisdiction, but such judgment or determination may be stated to have been duly given or made. If such allegation be controverted, the party pleading shall be bound to establish on the trial the facts conferring jurisdiction.” This, as I view it, relates only to courts and officers of special or limited jurisdiction, and does not govern the pleading of either domestic or foreign judgments rendered by courts whose jurisdiction is general. Bruckman v. Taussig, 7 Colo. 561, 562, 5 Pac. 152, 153.
Mr. Justice Butleb authorizes me to say that he concurs in this opinion.