25 Wis. 703 | Wis. | 1862
In deciding the appeal formerly brought in this case from the order refusing to dissolve the injunction, we necessarily passed upon the question now presented, so far as to hold that the demurrer to the defendant’s answer was properly overruled. We do not feel called upon now to go further and decide all the questions presented by the answer, as the respondent’s cou-n
If this objection was intended to reach the improper mingling of different grounds of defense or counterclaim in one statement, a demurrer is inappropriate for that purpose. An answer may be demurred to for “insufficiency,” and the counsel fqr the appellant referred to Yan Santvoórd’s Pleading, pp. 697 et seq., where it is intimated that under this phrase all the grounds of demurrer to a complaint might be included. But even if this is conceded, it seems now to be settled that the improper joining in one statement of different causes of action, which may be joined in the same complaint, is not ground of demurrer. The remedy is by motion. How. Code, p. 227, 228, and cases cited. Some of the cases hold otherwise, but we think the conclusion above stated is sustained by the better reasons, and that practice has been followed here. Clark v. Langworthy, 12 Wis. 441. And the same rule applied to a complaint, so far as this question is concerned, should be applied to an answer.
By the Court. — The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.