Where a pleading is attacked by demurrer on the ground of its insufficiency to state a cause of action, it is the duty of the court to construe such pleading liberally in favor of the pleader. Glass v. McCullough Transfer Co., 159 Ohio St. 505, 112 N.E.2d 823; Fulton, Supt., v. Ferguson, 44 Ohio App. 365, 185 N.E. 887; 31 Ohio Jurisprudence, 583, Section 49. It is well settled that where the facts in a pleading are not set forth with sufficient definiteness and certainty, or are otherwise defectively stated, and where such defect does not amount to an omission, a demurrer is not a proper method of attack.
In Valley Ry. Co. v. Lake Erie Iron Co., 46 Ohio St. 44, 18 N.E. 486, 1 L.R.A., 412, the court holds in syllabus 1: "Indefiniteness in pleading should be taken advantage of by motion and not by demurrer; so that, where the language of a pleading will fairly admit of a construction that will sustain it as against a demurrer, it should, in the absence of a motion to make definite and certain, be so construed." See, also, Green v. Carter, Treas., 28 Ohio App. 492, 162 N.E. 814; Baumann, Exrx., v. Mangold, 32 Ohio App. 419, 168 N.E. 217; Lowell v. Superior-Third Realty Co., 34 Ohio App. 128, 170 N.E. 185; Kolberg v. Central Fruit Grocery Co., 37 Ohio App. 64, 174 N.E. 144; Fulton, Supt. of Banks, v. Ferguson, 44 Ohio App. 365, 185 N.E. 887. The defendant has a complete remedy against indefinite pleading in Section 11336, General Code. If he fails to avail himself of such rights as are therein conferred, he cannot later complain that a court extends to the pleading the limit of favorable interpretation of the language used.