Drefahl v. Connell

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Drefahl v. Connell

55 N.W. 160, 85 Wis. 109, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 244

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMay 2, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 N.W. 160 (Drefahl v. Connell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drefahl v. Connell, 55 N.W. 160, 85 Wis. 109, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 244 (Wis. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Cassoday, J.

A demurrer to a complaint for insufficiency can only be sustained when the complaint fails to state any cause of action whatever. Moritz v. Splitt, 55 Wis. 443. Where, as here, a complaint states a good and complete cause of action as to certain failures of duty on the part of the defendant, such general demurrer will not be sustained merely because the complaint attempts, but fails, to state other failures of duty on the part of the defendant. Bronson v. Markey, 53 Wis. 98; Plainfield v. Plainfield, 67 Wis. 526. This is not an action for the breach of contract. The theory of the complaint is that the plaintiff was poor and diseased, and rightfully committed to the hospital, and was lawfully an inmate thereof, and as such was entitled to proper care, treatment, food, and medicine, as mentioned in the foregoing statement; that the defendant, as superintendent, had the full charge, control, and management of the hospital; that he was furnished with all necessary assistance, help, food, medicine, and supplies; that, instead of performing his duty in the premises, he neglected and failed to perform the same, so far as the plaintiff was concerned, in the particulars therein mentioned; that in consequence thereof the plaintiff suffered pain and anguish, and his sickness was augmented and prolonged, to his great damage, as mentioned. We must hold that the complaint states a good cause of action.

By the Court.— The order of the superior court of Milwaukee county is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cassoday, J.

A demurrer to a complaint for insufficiency can only be sustained when the complaint fails to state any cause of action whatever. Moritz v. Splitt, 55 Wis. 443. Where, as here, a complaint states a good and complete cause of action as to certain failures of duty on the part of the defendant, such general demurrer will not be sustained merely because the complaint attempts, but fails, to state other failures of duty on the part of the defendant. Bronson v. Markey, 53 Wis. 98; Plainfield v. Plainfield, 67 Wis. 526. This is not an action for the breach of contract. The theory of the complaint is that the plaintiff was poor and diseased, and rightfully committed to the hospital, and was lawfully an inmate thereof, and as such was entitled to proper care, treatment, food, and medicine, as mentioned in the foregoing statement; that the defendant, as superintendent, had the full charge, control, and management of the hospital; that he was furnished with all necessary assistance, help, food, medicine, and supplies; that, instead of performing his duty in the premises, he neglected and failed to perform the same, so far as the plaintiff was concerned, in the particulars therein mentioned; that in consequence thereof the plaintiff suffered pain and anguish, and his sickness was augmented and prolonged, to his great damage, as mentioned. We must hold that the complaint states a good cause of action.

By the Court.— The order of the superior court of Milwaukee county is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.W. 160, 85 Wis. 109, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drefahl-v-connell-wis-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack