The motion was made upon three grounds. First, that the claim set forth in the complaint had been released; second, that the action was not commenced within the time limited therefor; and third, that the court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, and that plaintiff's claim, if any, should be for workmen's compensation. There are questions of fact involved which preclude a decision on these issues as a matter of law, and hence the motion was properly denied. Order appealed from affirmed, with costs. All concur. [See post, pp. 1072, 1076.]