Hough v. Hough
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Crook: W. L. Bradshaw, Judge. This is an action to recover money. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendant, between the dates specified, in Crook County, Oregon, “loaned the defendant money, furnished him goods, wares, and merchandise, paid out money at his request, etc., to the full aggregate amount of seven hundred and forty-eight dollars and fifty-eight cents”; that the “defendant agreed and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Crook: W. L. Bradshaw, Judge. This is an action to recover money. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendant, between the dates specified, in Crook County, Oregon, “loaned the defendant money, furnished him goods, wares, and merchandise, paid out money at his request, etc., to the full aggregate amount of seven hundred and forty-eight dollars and fifty-eight cents”; that the “defendant agreed and promised to pay the plaintiff therefor the said sum of seven hundred and forty-eight dollars and fifty-eight cents,—…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Chiee Justice Loed.
If the several facts alleged constitute but one cause of action, the complaint is not vulnerable to the objection raised by the motion; but if they are separate transactions or demands, they should be separately stated as distinct causes of action. A complaint which fails to keep separate the different grounds of action, but confuses and blends them in one statement, is open to the objection of duplicity. The vice of duplicity in pleading consists in the union of more than one cause of action in one count in a writ, or more than one defense in one plea, or…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Patcher v. SpragueNew York Supreme Court · 1807
- Jackson v. RundletU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1846
3Cited by1 opinion
- Clark v. Oceano Beach Resort Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930