Case Name: Grinde v. The M. & St. P. R. Co.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1876-03-22
Citations: 42 Iowa 376
Docket Number: 
Parties: Grinde v. The M. & St. P. R. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
Grinde v. The M. & St. P. R. Co.
1. Pleading: more specific statement. In an action for damages against a railway company, the petition alleged that “the defendant by its agents and servants did run * * one of their engines in such a grossly negligent and careless manner that the same ran against and over” plaintiff's cow and killed her: . Held, that the petition was not vulnerable to a motion for a more specific statement.
2. -: —-: conclusions of law. While mere abstract conclusions of law cannot be pleaded, yet allegations which combine the elements of such conclusions and also of fact are admissible in a pleading.
Appeal from Winneshiek District Court.
Wednesday, March 22.
Plaintiff alleges in his petition that he was the owner of a certain cow, which casually strayed upon the track of defend ant’s road. That said defendant by its agents and servants did run and manage one of their engines in such a grossly negligent and careless manner, that the same ran against and over said cow and hilled her.
Defendant moved for a more specific statement, claiming that the allegation of negligence is so general, indefinite and uncertain, that the jirecise nature of the charge is not apparent.
Motion overruled; defendant excepted, and failing to answer, judgment was rendered for plaintiff by default, and defendant appeals.
Thos. Updegrafffor appellant.
Levi Bullis, for appellee.

Opinion:
Rothrock, J.
We are of opinion that the petition is sufficiently specific. It does not follow, because negligence is a mixed question of law and fact, that the general allegation is pleading a legal conclusion only. The facts necessary to be pleaded are not merely physical facts. It is not allowable to jilead mere abstract conclusions of law, having no element of fact; they form no jiart of the allegations constituting a cause of action; but if they contain the elements also of a fact, construing the language in its ordinary meaning, then force and effect must be given to them as allegations of fact, as when necessaries are furnished to an infant, or when a deed or mortgage is alleged as having been made, or the ownership of property is asserted; the general allegation is sufficient, being the ultimate fact to he established by evidence. To allege more would be to plead the evidence which is not allowable. Oldfield v. N. Y. & Harlem R. Co., 14 N. Y., 310; Nolton v. Western B. Co., 15 N. Y., 444.
Affirmed.