The Kansas Revised Code of Civil Procedure of the parties in the cause, reviewing courts everywhere habitually consider the technical correctness of the rulings of the trial court, and many cases are reversed merely for errors in matters of practice in which the parties have no interest, but which theoretically deny some right or confer some illegal advan tage. The universal practice in all the courts of this country, so far as I am aware, is to take exceptions to adverse rulings of the court, and the questions raised by these exceptions are alone considered by the reviewing court, unless the case turns on questions of law deci sive of the main issues in the case. A provision is common to all codes, re quiring the court in all stages of the action to disregard technical errors which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The courts, however, have felt bound to give effect to positive requirements of the statute with refer ence to procedure, and to reverse cases where they have been disregarded. There seems to be an inevitable tendency to magnify the importance of matters of form and shirk the consideration of matters of substance. The revised code abolishes exceptions and bills of excep tion, and requires the Supreme Court to pass on the merits of every case, where it is practicable to do so. Among the stumbling blocks over which suitors have fallen day by day may be noticed the provision, common to all the codes, which restricts the joinder of different causes of action to those falling within one of a number (seven in Kansas) of arbitrary classes. Lawyers are constantly confronted with most perplexing questions as to their right to join different claims in the same action. This difficulty is remedied in the new code by striking out all the classifications and allowing the plain tiff to join all the claims he has, pro
267
vided they affect all the parties to the action. The little section which peremptorily enjoins that each cause of action in a pleading must be separately stated and numbered often necessitates a great mass of useless verbiage, and a failure to comply with the section has occasioned a number of reversals in this state. This section is stricken out and it is made discretionary with the trial court to re quire separate stating and numbering or not according to the nature of the case. The old code made it a ground of demurrer if there was a defect of parties plaintiff or defendant or if several causes of action were improperly joined. Such defects may now be called to the atten tion of the court and remedied by motion, but are not grounds of demurrer. The new code does not treat the defendant quite as liberally in the matter of pleadings as it does the plain tiff. The only enlargement of the subject-matter that may be used in defence is made through a change of the defini tion of a set-off, which now includes any demand for money, and allows a set-off to be pleaded in any action for the recovery of money. In order to shut off sham answers for delay in actions founded on written instruments for the unconditional payment of money, or verified accounts for goods sold, or verified claims for wages, the answer must be verified. In counties where the courts are behind with their work it has been common practice to file answers pleading payment of money demands of all kinds and sorts when there was really no defence but the defendant de sired delay. Aside from changes in the article re lating to the venue of civil actions, which are only of local interest, and those relating to constructive service of
