Skillen v. Harris

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FORD, J.
• Citation: Skillen v. Harris, 90 Mont. 389, 3 P.2d 1054 (Mont. 1931)
• Decision Date: 03 October 1931
• Docket Number: 6790.
• Parties: SKILLEN et al. v. HARRIS et al.

3 P.2d 1054

90 Mont. 389

SKILLEN et al. v. HARRIS et al.

No. 6790.

Supreme Court of Montana

October 3, 1931

Appeal from District Court, Phillips County; John Hurly, Judge.

Action by William Skillen and another against Milton K. Harris and others, wherein Milton K. Harris and others filed cross-complaints. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

W. B Sands, of Chinook, for appellants.

Cooper Stephenson & Hoover and S. B. Chase, Jr., all of Great Falls and Robert O. Kerr, of Helena, for respondents.

FORD J.

This action was brought by plaintiff against Harris and others to quiet title to lands in Blaine county. Defendants Harris personally and as executor, and Campbell answered, admitting plaintiff's ownership of the lands and, by way of cross-complaint, joined Mary E. Skillen and her guardian and sought the foreclosure of a first mortgage executed by Skillen and wife upon the lands. Plaintiff's general demurrer to the cross-complaint was overruled. George W. Roberts answered and, by cross-complaint, added Mrs. Skillen and Fred Wollner as parties, and sought the foreclosure of a second mortgage executed by Skillen and wife to secure the payment of a promissory note given by Skillen. The defendants Blaine county and Grover Dowen answered separately, asserting tax liens against the lands. The default of Mary E. Skillen, Fred Wollner, guardian of the estate of Mary E. Skillen, insane, and other defendants was entered for failure to answer or otherwise plead to the cross-complaint of defendant Harris. Thereafter the cause was tried and judgment of foreclosure of the first mortgage was entered in favor of Harris. Upon appeal by plaintiff the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded to the district court of Phillips county "with directions to make determination of the relative rights and priorities of the plaintiff and the defendants who appeared in the action on the issues presented by their respective pleadings, and otherwise to amend the judgment conformably to the views herein expressed." Skillen v. Harris, 85 Mont. 73, 277 P. 803, 804.

The cause was retried before the court without a jury, and judgment was entered decreeing a first lien to Blaine county for the taxes of 1923, 1924, and 1926; a second lien to Grover Dowen for the 1925 taxes; a third lien to Milton K. Harris; and a fourth lien to Roberts. Plaintiff and Mary E. Skillen, by guardian, appeal from the judgment.

It is contended that the cross-complaint of Harris does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. An examination of the record on the former appeal discloses that this question was before us in that cause and found to be without merit; such pronouncement became the law of the case and must be adhered to. Carlson v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 86 Mont. 78, 281 P. 913; Altermatt v. Rocky Mt. Fire Ins. Co., 89 Mont. 153, 295 P. 327.

It is argued that the cross-complaints of Blaine county and Grover Dowen do not state causes of action. This question is raised for the first time on this appeal. "When the sufficiency of a complaint is challenged for the first time on appeal, the objection that it does not state a cause of action is regarded with disfavor, and every reasonable inference will be drawn from the facts stated necessary to uphold it" (Ellinghouse v. Ajax Livestock Co., 51 Mont. 275, 152 P. 481, L. R. A. 1916D, 836; Gilna v. Barker, 78 Mont. 357, 254 P. 174), and "matters of form will be disregarded, as well as allegations that are irrelevant and redundant. If upon any view the plaintiff is entitled to relief the pleading will be held sufficient" (Hodson v. O'Keeffe, 71 Mont. 322, 229 P. 722, 723).

While the cross-complaints in this case are not models of pleading, we are of the opinion, measured by the rules just announced, that they are sufficient.

By cross-complaint Roberts made Mary E. Skillen and her guardian parties defendant. They were not served with summons upon such cross-complaint, and upon the trial it was dismissed as to them, and judgment of foreclosure entered against William Skillen. It is argued by the attorney for Mrs. Skillen that she was a necessary party to the action and, since the...