cl-8010230 Precedential Affirmed Processed

Truesdell v. Hull

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed July 20, 1886 · 29 N.W. 72

Cited by

City of Austin v. Wright 114 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1962
State Ex Rel. City of Minneapolis v. Boucher 214 N.W. 30 Minn. 1927
Hagemeyer v. Board of County Commissioners 73 N.W. 628 Minn. 1898

Opinion text

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.