Case Name: Kate Truesdell vs. Edgar Hull
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1886-07-20
Citations: 35 Minn. 468
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kate Truesdell vs. Edgar Hull.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 468–468

Head Matter:
Kate Truesdell vs. Edgar Hull.
July 20, 1886.
Pleading — Motion to Strike Out or Make More Definite. — Upon a motion to strike out, or make more definite, particular allegations objected to should be specifically pointed out in the motion papers.
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Stearns county, Collins, J., presiding, denying his motion to strike out the complaint, or to require it to be made more definite and certain.
Taylor é Calhoun and D. B. á F. E. Searle, for appellant.
D. W. Bruckart and O. W. Baldwin, for respondent.

Opinion:
Berry, J.
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.