Case ID: or_125/html/0101-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued March 28,
    affirmed April 3, 1928.
    C. M. KIGGINS v. DAN WUILLE & CO., Inc.
    (265 Pac. 785.)
    Pleading — Fourth Amended Complaint, Which Like Its Predecessors Failed Clearly to Indicate the Cause of Action, Held Properly Stricken from the Files.
    Where complaint was amended four times and each time failed to indicate clearly the cause of aetion which plaintiff sought to present against defendant, held that trial court properly struck fourth amended complaint from the files.
    Pleading, 31 Cyc., p. 618, n. 54.
    From Hood River: Fred W. Wilson, Judge.
    Department 1.
    Affirmed.
    For appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. Thomas A. Hayes.
    
    For respondent there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Teal, Winfree, McCulloch & Shuler and Mr. Ernest C. Smith, with an oral argument by Mr. A. P. Kelley.
    
   PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the pleading before us and the Circuit Court order in regard thereto. Apparently, the lower court desired that the complaint should clearly indicate the cause of action which the plaintiff sought to present against the defendant. The pleading before us, plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint, intermingles the idea of affirming the contract and at the same time rescinding it on charges of fraud. Further, such matters as are alleged consisted largely of allegations of evidence, many upon immaterial matters; but where clarity is desirable, we find only conclusions of law. Tbe complaint fails to disclose a cause of action.

Tbe law in regard to such situations bas been many times set forth by this and other courts. We know of no occasion to once more enunciate these principles. Four complaints preceded this one; apparently, each time the lower court sought to induce the plaintiff to prepare a proper pleading. When the fourth amended complaint was filed, which also violated the previous rulings, the court struck the complaint from the files. No error was done in so doing.

The order of the lower court is affirmed but without prejudice against instituting another cause.

Affirmed.