Court Opinion

ID: 9663635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:45:52.74817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:54.006941
License: Public Domain

CURRIE, C. J.
(concurring). Appellant defendant’s principal contention is that the circuit court’s order sustaining the demurrer to the original complaint served within the three-year limitation period constitutes the law of the case and conclusively establishes that such complaint failed to state a cause of action. From this hypothesis he argues that such a defective complaint is the equivalent of no complaint and therefore cannot be amended after the running of the limitation period so as to state a cause of action. The fallacy of this argument *319is that it erroneously assumes that in order to prevent the running of the statute of limitations a good complaint must be served within the statutory period.
The question of when , an action is commenced so as to arrest the running of the statute of limitations is usually dependent upon express statutory provisions.1 Wisconsin is one of the many jurisdictions which has specified by statute how an action is to be commenced so as to arrest the running of the statute of limitations by enacting sec. 330.39, Stats., which provides:
“Action, when commenced. An action shall be deemed commenced, within the meaning of any provision of law which limits the time for the commencement of an action, as to each defendant, when the summons is served on him or on a codefendant who is a joint contractor or otherwise united in interest with him.”
Thus an action is commenced within the meaning of ch. 330, Stats. (Limitations of Actions), by service of a summons without a complaint. Accordingly a plaintiff who serves a defective complaint within the limitation period, but which he is permitted to amend after the running of such period so as to state a good cause of action, should be in no worse position than if he had only served a summons within such period and thereafter serves a complaint which does state a cause of action.
A complaint that is first served after running of the limitation period relates back to the summons that was served within the period. It thus establishes once and for all the nature of the cause of action for which the summons was served, and cannot thereafter be amended so as to state a different cause of action.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Beilfuss joins in this concurring opinion.

 34 Am. Jur., Limitation of Actions, p. 208, sec. 254. See also 1 Am. Jur. (2d), Actions, p. 615, see. 86.