92 Ind. 101 | Ind. | 1883
The question for our decision is whether the appellee’s complaint is good on demurrer assigning for cause
It is a familiar rule, enforced by many decisions, that if a complaint is good enough to entitle the ¡^aintiff to some relief, it will withstand a demurrer. In our opinion this complaint is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a money recovery, and this requires us to sustain the ruling of the court below.
Where a complaint entitles a plaintiff to some relief, but not to all granted, the remedy is by motion to modify the judgment. In this case, the soundness of the ruling adjudg-® ing as part of the relief a forfeiture of the lease of the demised premises could have been properly questioned by a motion to modify the judgment and in no other manner. Hardy v. Miller, 89 Ind. 440.
The appellant’s counsel has ably argued the question of appellee’s right to a forfeiture, but settled rules forbid us considering the question. • The question discussed is an important one, but if there is in any ease an excuse for discussing and deciding a question not properly presented, there is none here, for we have had no brief from the appellee.
Our plain duty is to affirm the judgment. Judgment affirmed.