Bank of California, N. A. v. American Fruit Growers, Inc.

E.D. Washington

Bank of California, N. A. v. American Fruit Growers, Inc.

37 F. Supp. 1017, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3636

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Washington

DecidedMarch 11, 1941

DocketNo. 143

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 F. Supp. 1017 (Bank of California, N. A. v. American Fruit Growers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of California, N. A. v. American Fruit Growers, Inc., 37 F. Supp. 1017, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3636 (E.D. Wash. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWELLENBACH, District Judge.

At the time of the oral argument, I denied defendant’s motions to dismiss and took under advisement the alternative issues to strike certain portions of the amended complaint. It seems to me that the question involved in these motions is decided in the case of Keiser v. Walsh, 118 F.2d 13, this being a case decided by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on January 21, 1941. In that case four alternatives were pleaded in a single sentence. The District Court dismissed it. Its action was reversed by the Appellate Court which stated:' “Rule 8(e) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c], expressly permits the pleading of alternatives, and provides that an alternative statement which would be sufficient if made independently is not vitiated by the insufficiency of other alternative statements. Appellant lias pleaded four alternatives.”

Defendant’s motions to strike are therefore denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHWELLENBACH, District Judge.

At the time of the oral argument, I denied defendant’s motions to dismiss and took under advisement the alternative issues to strike certain portions of the amended complaint. It seems to me that the question involved in these motions is decided in the case of Keiser v. Walsh, 118 F.2d 13, this being a case decided by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on January 21, 1941. In that case four alternatives were pleaded in a single sentence. The District Court dismissed it. Its action was reversed by the Appellate Court which stated:' “Rule 8(e) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c], expressly permits the pleading of alternatives, and provides that an alternative statement which would be sufficient if made independently is not vitiated by the insufficiency of other alternative statements. Appellant lias pleaded four alternatives.”

Defendant’s motions to strike are therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F. Supp. 1017, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-california-n-a-v-american-fruit-growers-inc-waed-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack