Allen v. People's Amusement Co.
This text of 167 P. 272 (Allen v. People's Amusement Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
delivered the opinion of the court.
Plaintiff’s counsel in a very able and interesting argument discusses many questions which are not before us. If the demurrer was properly sustained it is neither necessary nor proper for us to go further than to so declare. By Section 68, L. O. L., a demurrer is made the method of attacking a misjoinder of causes of action. The complaint contains a demand for relief based upon a breach of contract, and another upon assault and battery which is, of course, a tort. In Smith v. Day, 39 Or. 531, 537 (65 Pac. 1055), Mr. Justice Wolverton says:
“It is so well settled that an action on contract cannot be united with one arising ex delicto that it does not require a citation of authorities to support the proposition.”
[638]*638The demurrer was properly sustained and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.
Rehearing denied October 3, 1917.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
167 P. 272, 85 Or. 636, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-peoples-amusement-co-or-1917.