Truesdell v. Hull
This text of 29 N.W. 72 (Truesdell v. Hull) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The motion to strike out the complaint, or to require it to be amended, is made, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 107, “for the reason that the allegations of said complaint are so indefinite and uncertain that the precise nature of the charge is not apparent.” We find no difficulty in gathering from the complaint, taken as a whole, what the precise nature of .the charge therein made is. If any particular allegations are objectionable as indefinite or uncertain, they should be specifically pointed out (as they are not) in the motion papers. See Blake v. Eldred, 18 How. Pr. 240. If the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the remedy is by demurrer, not by motion to strike out, or for an amendment.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 N.W. 72, 35 Minn. 468, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/truesdell-v-hull-minn-1886.