Brooks v. Paddock
| Decision Date | 01 December 1881 |
| Citation | 6 Colo. 36 |
| Parties | BROOKS v. PADDOCK. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Appeal from County Court of Lake County.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. L. N. BUCK, for appellant.
Mr. A. T. GREEN, for appellee.
The code requires that the complaint shall contain, inter alia, 'a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action.' * * *
The averments of the complaint can alone be looked to in determining its sufficiency.
If defective for want of material allegations, it cannot be aided by reference to exhibits made a part of it.
The complaint must state a cause of action without regard to the exhibits. Deitz et al. v. Corwin et al. 35 Mo. 377; Bowling v. McFarland, 38 Mo. 464; Larimore v. Wells, 29 O. St. 13; Gebhard v. Gardner, 12 Bush, 325; Hill v. Barrett, 14 B. Monroe, 67. This was also the rule under our former practice. Buck et al. v. Fisher et al. 2 Col. 185; Gage v. Lewis, 68 Ill. 618.
The amended complaint in this case does not state the facts constituting the cause of action, but refers to the exhibit therefor.
Without reference to the exhibit it is unintelligible. Even if the exhibit could be considered, there is no averment that the amount claimed by the plaintiff is due on the contract set forth in the exhibit.
There are other objections to the relief asked and in part decreed, but they need not be considered.
The complaint was clearly insufficient, and the court erred in overruling the demurrer.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Towne v. St. Anthony and Dakota Elevator Company
...is an instrument for the payment of money only. § 5268 Rev. Codes; Mayor v. Signoret, 50 Cal. 298; Buck v. Ficher, 2 Colo. 185; Brooks v. Paddock, 6 Colo. 36; Baker Berry, 37 Mo. 307; Kern v. Ins. Co., 40 Mo. 25; Peake v. Bell, 65 Mo. 224; Pomeroy v. Fullerton, 133 Mo. 440; Hartford Ins. Co......
-
McPherson v. Hattich
... ... Macdonell v. International etc. Co., 60 Tex. 590; ... Burkett v. Griffith, 90 Cal. 542, 27 P. 527, 13 ... L.R.A. 707, 25 Am. St. Rep. 151; Brooks v. Paddock, ... 6 Colo. 36; Pomeroy v. Fullerton, 113 Mo. 440, 21 ... S.W. 19. In a few states, as in Nebraska, this may be done ... even to the ... ...
-
Sweeney v. Johnson
...a complaint, cannot be left out and the defect supplied by reference to an exhibit attached to and made a part of the complaint. (Brooks v. Paddock, 6 Colo. 36; Angeles v. Signoret, 50 Cal. 298; Burkett v. Griffith, 90 Cal. 532, 25 Am. St. 151, 27 P. 527, 13 L. R. A. 707; Malheur County v. ......
-
Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins. Co. v. Edward P. Allis Co.
...of a bill in equity must show a case without regard to the exhibits, because they could not be taken as part of it; and in Brooks v. Paddock, 6 Colo. 36, it was said by the same court, after the Code, that the averments of the complaint can alone be looked to in determining its sufficiency;......