Gooding v. Doyle
| Decision Date | 18 February 1908 |
| Citation | 134 Wis. 623,115 N.W. 114 |
| Parties | GOODING v. DOYLE ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Fond du Lac County; Chester A. Fowler, Judge.
Suit by J. M. Gooding, on behalf of himself and of others similarly situated, against T. L. Doyle, as mayor of the city of Fond du Lac, and others. From orders granting plaintiff's motion to strike certain parts of the answer, and sustaining a demurrer to other portions thereof, defendants appeal. Appeal from the order sustaining motion to strike dismissed, order sustaining demurrer reversed, and cause remanded, with directions.
The complaint is one by a resident freeholder and taxpayer of the city of Fond du Lac, suing in his own behalf and in behalf of all others similarly situated. The action is in equity to restrain the officers and agents of the city from paying a claim presented by the Bulletin Printing Company, under an alleged contract between the city and the printing company for the publication of the city common council proceedings, upon the ground that the contract is wholly illegal and void. The defendant T. L. Doyle, as mayor of the city, answered separately, denying the illegality of the contract and that the payment of such claim would result in an illegal diversion of the city's funds. This answer further alleges, in separate paragraphs, in effect: (1) That for many years the city has published the council proceedings in some daily paper published in the city, and that the common council, on September 6, 1905, directed its clerk to advertise for bids for such publication; (2) that bids were received from different papers, including the Bulletin Printing Company; (3) that the common council directed that a contract be made with this company to publish the common council proceedings not required to be published by law; (4) that the bill embraced in the complaint was for two items of printing, $5 for copies of council proceedings in pamphlet form for the use of the city officers, and $40.60 for printing the council proceedings under the contract with the city; (5) that the Daily Bulletin had been published as a daily paper in said city since January 16, 1905, and had an extensive circulation, and one in excess of the other papers published in the city; (6) that the two printing companies other than the Bulletin Company, before bidding on the city printing under the call for bids to do the city printing for the period embraced in the complaint, had entered into a conspiracy to cheat the city by preventing competition in bidding for city printing, that the plaintiff aided in carrying out such conspiracy, and that he brings this action to prevent payment of this bill in furtherance thereof. On June 18, 1906, the plaintiff made a motion to strike out portions of the allegations of the answer as irrelevant and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Columbus v. Town of Fountain Prairie
... ... Gooding v. Doyle, infra, decided herewith. It follows that the demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained, on the ground that the city of Columbus ... ...
-
Lounsbury v. Eberlein
...an order striking out a portion of an answer not so pleaded, as a demurrer does not lie to a portion not so pleaded. Gooding v. Doyle, supra [134 Wis. 623, 115 N.W. 114]. It seems manifest that before one can demur or give effect as a demurrer to a motion to strike a portion of an answer, o......
-
Danielson v. Garage Equip. Mfg. Co.
...28 Wis. 118;State ex rel. Rice v. Chittenden, 107 Wis. 354, 83 N. W. 635;McCall v. Stone, 124 Wis. 572, 102 N. W. 1053;Gooding v. Doyle, 134 Wis. 623, 115 N. W. 114. [4] We have set out quite fully the substance of the material parts of the complaint, and, treating it as one cause of action......
-
McCarthy v. Steinkellner
...whole of a portion thereof pleaded as a distinct and complete defense. McCall Co. v. Stone, 124 Wis. 572, 102 N.W. 1053;Gooding v. Doyle, 134 Wis. 623, 115 N.W. 114. [2] The plaintiff urges that a demurrer lies to separate defenses set up by answer. This is correct. But before a demurrer ca......