From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reed v. General Implement Export Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 27, 1949
9 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ohio 1949)

Opinion

         Action on an alleged oral contract by Russell A. Reed against the General Implement Export Corporation. On motion by defendant for a more definite statement, setting forth names of person or persons with whom plaintiff entered into the oral contract and the time and place of the agreement.

         Motion sustained.

          Jos. W. Kennedy, Cleveland, Ohio, Philip Kasdan, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

          Leonard S. Frost, Cleveland, Ohio, Will Freeman, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.


          JONES, Chief Judge.

         This is an action upon a ‘ verbal contract’. (I assume the word ‘ verbal’ as used in these pleadings means ‘ oral’ .)

          Defendant has filed a motion for a more definite statement, under Rule 12(e). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., setting forth the names of the person or persons with whom plaintiff entered into the alleged oral contract and the time and place of such agreement.

         Plaintiff has filed no brief in opposition to the motion.

          The motion is well taken and should be sustained. An oral contract, by its very nature, requires specific identification in pleading as to time, place and parties or agents. In an action on a written contract these facts would be readily ascertainable by reference to an attached copy and, where there is no copy, they should appear in the complaint.

         Enter order accordingly.


Summaries of

Reed v. General Implement Export Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 27, 1949
9 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ohio 1949)
Case details for

Reed v. General Implement Export Corp.

Case Details

Full title:REED v. GENERAL IMPLEMENT EXPORT CORPORATION.

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Apr 27, 1949

Citations

9 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ohio 1949)

Citing Cases

Watkins v. Omni Life Science, Inc.

While the court expressed skepticism whether Brown was in fact an intended third-party beneficiary, Brown at…

Sky Technology Partners, LLC v. Midwest Research Institute

Defendants also seek a more definite statement in regard to plaintiffs breach of contract claim, requesting…