Barron Et Al v. District Court

1. Pleading ? Only defendant can file cross-complaint. The statute authorizing a defendant to file a cross-complaint can be availed of only by defendant to an action and is for his benefit alone. 2. Pleading ? Words &; Phrases ? Purpose of reply. The office of a "reply" is to meet the allegations of new matter in the answer, that is, to join issue upon the counterclaim or new matter of defense alleged in the answer or to avoid it, and while a reply may aid the answer in a particular instance, it cannot aid the complaint, by supplying an omission therein or broadening its scope by adding to it a new ground of relief. 3. Pleading ? Allegations broadening scope of complaint should have been stricken. Where the allegations contained in plaintiffs so-called cross-complaint, included in his reply, did not constitute a defense to new matter found in defendants answer and were not responsive thereto but were an attempt to broaden the scope of the complaint by adding a new ground for relief, plaintiffs attempted pleading was bad and should have been stricken upon timely motion. 4. Equity ? Jurisdiction of court of equity. Generally a court having acquired jurisdiction in an equity case retains it for all purposes. 5. Action ? Plaintiff cannot recover beyond case stated in complaint. Although the common-law distinctions of form of actions have been abolished under the Code system, the substantial rights remain unchanged, the reasons underlying the causes of action remain the same, and plaintiff may not recover beyond the case stated by him in his complaint. 6. Courts ? Writ of supervisory control not to issue when appeal is adequate. A writ of supervisory control would not be issued to prevent the trial court from continuing its hearing of a quiet title action in which the present relators were the defendants after overruling of defendants motion to strike plaintiffs so-called cross-complaint included in his reply, even though the ruling on defendants motion to strike was erroneous, where it did not appear that any injustice to defendants could not be corrected by an appeal from the final judgment.