Horton v. Foley
Decision Date | 27 November 1923 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 12384 |
Citation | 1923 OK 1036,220 P. 907,94 Okla. 9 |
Parties | HORTON v. FOLEY et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Pleading -- Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings--Nature.
A motion for judgment upon the pleadings is in the nature of a demurrer. It is in substance both a motion and a demurrer. It is a demurrer for the reason that it attacks the sufficiency of the pleadings; and it is a motion for the reason that it is an application for an order for judgment. Like a demurrer, it admits the truth of all well-pleaded facts in the pleadings of the opposing party.
2. Fraud--Misrepresentation of Law Generally not Actionable.
Plaintiff, vendee, alleged in his petition that after the execution of a contract with the vendor for the purchase of real estate, such vendor caused to be inserted in such contract a clause reserving the oil and gas mining rights in such real estate to the vendor; that vendor falsely stated, referring to such reservation in such contract, that it "made no difference at all." Defendant answered, among other things, denying the fraud. Plaintiff alleged that subsequently he accepted, under protest and subject to his legal rights, a deed from vendor for such real estate containing such reservation and otherwise fully performed such contract. Plaintiff prayed for judgment decreeing such reservation in such deed void, alleging only the fraud of vendor in making such statement. Held, that said statement, to wit, "made no difference at all," even if false and made as alleged, is a statement as to the law and not actionable.
3. Pleading--Judgment on Pleadings--Action for Fraud.
Record examined, and held that under syllabus I above, it was not error for the court to sustain motion of defendant for judgment on the pleadings under syllabus 2 above.
C. E. Castle and E. J. Broaddus, for plaintiff in error.
C. H. Tully, for defendants in error.
¶1 Plaintiff in error. John Horton as plaintiff, sued C. E. Foley et al., defendants in error, as defendants, in the district court of Wagoner county. The material parts of his petition follow:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Maxwell v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 5507
-
Williams v. Wilson
...it attacks the sufficiency of the pleading, and a motion for the reason that it is an application for an order for judgment. Horton v. Foley, 94 Okla. 9, 220 P. 907; Johnson v. Furchtbar, 96 Okla. 114, 220 P. 612. ¶7 The demurrer here made falls somewhat short of this in that it does not as......
-
Orchid Shoppe, Inc. v. Sherwood Shoe Co.
... ... Horton v. Foley, 94 Okla. 9, 220 P. 907; Redskin Mining Co. v. McNeal Machinery Co., 108 Okla. 213, 234 P. 985; Walker v. Von Wedel, 108 Okla. 292, 237 P ... ...
- Horton v. Foley