Case Name: CREDIT SERVICE COMPANY v. ISRAEL KORN
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1927-06-21
Citations: 121 Or. 685
Docket Number: 
Parties: CREDIT SERVICE COMPANY v. ISRAEL KORN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 685–687

Head Matter:
Submitted on brief by appellant May 7,
affirmed June 21, 1927.
CREDIT SERVICE COMPANY v. ISRAEL KORN.
(256 Pac. 1047.)
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. W. B. Layton and Mr. Edward A. Boyrie.
For respondent there was no appearance.

Opinion:
BELT, J.
It is contended that the alleged plea in abatement is insufficient and that, therefore, such defense has been waived. Under Section 74, Or. L., it is permissible to join a plea in abatement with one in bar, but there has been no change in the requisites of such pleas at common law. Since the above defense is a dilatory plea, it is not favored in law (Walker v. Hewitt, 109 Or. 366 (35 A. L. R. 100, 220 Pac. 147), and he who would avail himself of it must conform strictly to the rules of pleading applicable to such defenses. The pleader is required to allege facts with a high degree of certainty and particularity and must conclude with the prayer asking for the abatement of the action.
Our attention is directed to Sutherlin v. Bloomer, 50 Or. 398 (93 Pac. 135), wherein it is said:
"Where matter in abatement concludes in bar, it must be so treated and its character must be determined, not from the subject matter of the plea, but from its conclusion or prayer."
It will be observed that the defendant did not ask for the abatement of the action and his plea is, therefore, defective in this respect. Is it fatally so in the absence of demurrer and after verdict? In Sutherlin v. Bloomer, supra, a demurrer was interposed to such plea and what was said there must be read in the light of the record before the court. In the instant case the trial court, in keeping with well-established practice in this jurisdiction, proceeded, without objection on the part of appellant, to determine the issues under the plea in abatement, and judgment was rendered to the effect that plaintiff's action was prematurely commenced. We think, after verdict, the defense pleaded is sufficient, although would undoubtedly be vulnerable to demurrer. The facts alleged were certain to every intent and.it seems to the writer that it would be unduly stressing adherence to technical rules of pleading to reverse this cause merely for the reason that the defendant did not specifically ask for that which everybody knew was desired. After all, the object of pleadings is to definitely apprise the adverse party of that which is to be relied upon during trial. Courts, in the administration of justice, should be more concerned with substance than form.
The judgment of the lower court in abating this action is affirmed,- Aepirmed.