Owen v. Oviatt
Decision Date | 20 April 1885 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | HENRY OWEN v. LEWIS OVIATT |
APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the third district.
The opinion states the facts.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
Mr. J. D. Lomax, for appellant.
Messrs. Hoge & Jonasson, for respondent.
The respondent brought an action against appellant in the third district court, for a dissolution of partnership, for an accounting and for an injunction restraining the sale or transfer of property alleged to have been bought with partnership money.
The complaint was demurred to, by appellant, upon the grounds:
3. That the complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain.
The demurrer was overruled. The complaint alleges in general terms, that a business venture, a partnership, was entered into between appellant and respondent, for quarrying and selling limestone; the leasing by them of a stone quary for that business; the carrying on of said business of quarrying and selling limestone until the tenth of October, 1882, when they concluded to sell their lease, and did sell it; that appellant was authorized to act for both in negotiating a sale; that appellant sold the lease for three thousand dollars, but represented to respondent that he sold it for two thousand dollars, concealing the true consideration; that respondent was thus deprived of five hundred dollars, etc. Taking all the allegations together we think they are sufficient to show a partnership. They show a common enterprise entered into by appellant and respondent, and carried on by them for their common and joint benefit, and further, that the partnership property was sold.
The second and third grounds of demurrer are not sufficiently specific. The demurrer should show wherein or in what respect the complaint is ambiguous, unintelligible or uncertain, and in what respect it is multifarious and improperly confounds together distinct causes of action.
We see no error in the action of the court below.
Let the judgment be affirmed with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lutyen v. Ritchie
... ... Bode, 84 Cal. 494, 24 P. 269; ... Healy v. Visalia & T. R. Co., 101 Cal. 585, 36 P ... 125; Green v. Taney, 7 Colo. 278, 3 P. 423; Owen v ... Oviatt, 4 Utah 95, 6 P. 527.) ... The ... court should disregard any immaterial errors in the pleadings ... which do not affect ... ...
-
Golden Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. Johnstone
... ... 313, 28 So. 35; ... Cohen v. Ottenheimer, 13 Or. 220, 10 P. 20; ... Baker v. Hawkins, 29 Wis. 576; Gardner v ... Fisher, 87 Ind. 369; Owen v. Oviatt, 4 Utah 95, 6 P ... Pleading ... must state two or more good causes of action to be demurrable ... for misjoinder ... ...
-
Minter v. Gose
... ... point out or specify wherein separate causes of action ... against several defendants are improperly joined. (Owen v ... Oviatt, 4 Utah 95; 51 Cal. 431; 91 Ind. 182; 101 Cal. 585.) ... POTTER, ... JUSTICE. CORN, C. J., concurs ... ...