Nicolai v. Krimbel
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Murphy v. Harty (Or. 1964)
- Sullivan v. Carpenter (Or. 1948)
- Bonesteel Motor Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance (Or. 1929)
- Western Feed Co. v. Heidloff (Or. 1962)
- Mills v. Liquidators (Or. 1956)
- Duby v. Hicks (Or. 1922)
- Sayles v. Daniels Sales Agency (Or. 1921)
- Hornefius v. Wilkinson (Or. 1908)
- Patterson v. Patterson (Or. 1902)
- Philomath v. Ingle (Or. 1902)
- Black v. Teeter (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1902)
- Crown Cycle Co. v. Brown (Or. 1901)
- Roseburg Railway Co. v. Nosler (Or. 1900)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
That the complaint is defective, and would have been subject to a demurrer, may be conceded, but we think it must be held sufficient after verdict. The general rule in such case is “that wherever facts are not expressly stated which are so essential to a recovery that, without proof of them on the trial, a verdict could not have been rendered under the direction of the court, there the want of the express statement is cured by the verdict, provided the complaint contains terms sufficiently general to comprehend the facts in fair , and reasonable intendment”: Field, J., in Garner v. Marshall, 9 Cal. 269. The complaint in this case alleges the sale and delivery of the goods, wares, and merchandise out of which the indebtedness arose by the plaintiff to the defendant at his special instance and request; and the failure to allege the date of such sale, or the reasonable value or agreed price of such goods, or the time or terms of payment, are mere defects of statement, and are, we think, cured by verdict: Davidson v. Oregon and California Railroad Company, 11 Or. 136 (1 Pac. 705); Aiken v. Coolidge, 12 Or. 244 (6 Pac. 712). Courts are required to disregard defects in pleadings which do not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party: Hill’s Code, § 106. In the case before us we cannot say from an inspection of the record that any substantial right of defendant was or could
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.