This is a suit to quiet title filed by several plaintiffs some of whom had property interests separate and distinct from the others. Defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground of misjoinder of parties plaintiff. The demurrer was overruled and defendants refused to plead over. They now appeal from a judgment entered for plaintiffs.

Paragraph I of the complaint alleges that plaintiff Leona Pallies is the owner of the East half of the North half of Lot 1. Paragraph III alleges that plaintiffs Cecil and Lucy Finney are owners of the West 27 feet of the North 76.5 feet of Lot 1. The complaint then alleges that defendants claim some interest in all of Lot 1 through the assignment of a contract to them. It is alleged that the assignment was recorded on April 22,1965.

The demurrer to the complaint on the ground of misjoinder of parties was not well taken. ORS 13.150 permits joinder when there is a defect or cloud on the title to real property which affects more than one parcel separately owned.①

*189Defendants also assign as error the denial of their motion to require plaintiffs to make the complaint more definite and certain by setting out the source and date of the title which plaintiffs allege is superior to that of defendants. Defendants make this argument not simply on the ground that greater specificity was necessary to malm it possible for defendants to adequately prepare their case, but on the ground that the failure to set out these facts makes the complaint demurrable for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The contention is without merit. As we have explained in more detail in Mekulich v. Liddycoat, 268 Or 160, 519 P2d 378 (1974), decided this day, the source and date of the acquisition of the plaintiffs’ title need not be alleged in the complaint to state a cause of action.②

The decree of the trial court is affirmed.