Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

85 Wis. 109

Drefahl v. Connell

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 1893

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1893-05-02

The complaint alleges, in effect, that during all the time from April 15,1891, to May 3,1892, the defendant held the offices of one of tbe superintendents of tbe poor of tbe county of Milwaukee, and superintendent of tbe county hospital of said county; that during all said time tbe plaintiff was lawfully an inmate of said hospital; that be was afflicted with a disease affecting his legs; that during all of said time it was the duty of said defendant, as such superintendent,…

Relies on Moritz v. Splitt · Bronson v. Markey · Town of Plainfield v. Village of Plainfield

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-05-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1961

4 state decisions

1018931900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cassoday, J.

¶1A 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.

¶2By the Court.— The order of the superior court of Milwaukee county is affirmed.

/85/wis/109 · .json · Public domain