The capacity of a complaint to give notice of the line of attack is said to be the principal requirement that it must now possess. Donis v. Sawyer Service, Inc., 143 Or. 433, 435, 21 P.2d 776, citing Clark, Code Pleading, p 74. During the course of the trial defendant at no time claimed surprise and apparently had no difficulty in understanding the nature of the claim upon which the plaintiff relied. Donis, supra.

The cases relied upon by the plaintiff to support the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the facts of this case are all cases in which the defendant had exclusive control of the premises. Gillilan v. Portland Crematorium Assn., 120 Or. 286, 249 P. 627; Suko v. Northwestern Ice Cold Storage Co., 166 Or. 557, 113 P.2d 209; Donis v. Sawyer Service, Inc., 143 Or. 433, 21 P.2d 776; Kelly v. Lewis Inv. Co., 66 Or. 1, 133 P. 826; Esberg Cigar Co. v. Portland, 34 Or. 282, 55 P. 961, 43 L.R.A. 435, 75 Am. St. Rep. 651; Windas v. Galston Sutton Theatres, Inc., 35 Cal.App. 533, 96 P.2d 170; and Cooley on Torts, 4 ed., vol. 3, section 480. As illustrative of the necessity for possession and control by defendant before res ipsa loquitur can be invoked, we quote from Slater v. Barnes, 241 N.Y. 284, 149 N.E. 859: "These instructions in our opinion violated one of the fundamental conditions permitting the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur.

It may draw therefrom such inferences of fact, even though they cover the facts essential to a recovery or defense, as are reasonably warranted thereby. Rogers v. Cole, 99 Vt. 239, 241, 131 A. 12; Donis v. Sawyer Service, Inc., 143 Or. 433, 21 Pac. (2nd) 776; Latham v. Hankey, 117 Conn. 5, 10, 166 A. 400; Stickling v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co., 215 Iowa, 1312, 247 N.W. 642, 644; Hornick v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 307 Penn. 264, 161 A. 75; Perry v. Johnson Fruit Co., 123 Neb. 558, 243 N.W. 655. While the testimony might have been more specific and definite, we cannot say that, as matter of law, the full findings were unwarranted. The defendant says that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything because he did not procure a customer for the farm at the price named by the defendant, and likens the case to Oben v. Ducharme, 93 Vt. 211, 106 A. 777. But the contract involved in that case was quite different from the one involved here.