Case Name: C. M. KIGGINS v. DAN WUILLE & CO., Inc.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1928-04-03
Citations: 125 Or. 101
Docket Number: 
Parties: C. M. KIGGINS v. DAN WUILLE & CO., Inc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 101–102

Head Matter:
Argued March 28,
affirmed April 3, 1928.
C. M. KIGGINS v. DAN WUILLE & CO., Inc.
(265 Pac. 785.)
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.

Opinion:
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.