Reed v. General Implement Export Corp.

9 F.R.D. 182, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3165
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedApril 27, 1949
DocketCiv. No. 26062
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 9 F.R.D. 182 (Reed v. General Implement Export Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reed v. General Implement Export Corp., 9 F.R.D. 182, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3165 (N.D. Ohio 1949).

Opinion

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action upon a “verbal contract” assume the word “verbal” as used ln these Pleadlnffs means “oral”)

Defendant has filed a motion for a more definite statement, under Rule 12(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., setting forth the names of the person [183]*183or persons with whom plaintiff entered into the alleged oral contract and the time and place of such agreement.

Plaintiff has filed no brief in opposition to the motion.

The motion is well taken and should be sustained. An oral contract, by its very nature, requires specific identification in pleading as to time, place and parties or agents. In an action on a written contract these facts would be readily ascertainable by reference to an attached copy and, where there is no copy, they should appear in the complaint.

Enter order accordingly.

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

Related

Watkins v. OMNI LIFE SCIENCE, INC.
692 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D. Massachusetts, 2010)
Marquardt-Glenn Corp. v. Lumelite Corp.
11 F.R.D. 175 (S.D. New York, 1951)
Hartman Electrical Mfg. Co. v. Prime Mfg. Co.
9 F.R.D. 510 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 F.R.D. 182, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-general-implement-export-corp-ohnd-1949.