action of the inferior court upon such motion. Patterson v. Hollister, 1 Mo. 478.

A motion to reform a petition on the general allegation that the pleadings are irrelevant or redundant is not sufficient. The motion should, with at least a reasonable degree of certainty, set forth the particulars wherein the pleadings are uncertain. Good practice not only requires the petition to have certainty and brevity, but it also requires some certainty and distinctness to be observed by the defendant. O'Connor v. Koch, 15 Mo. 253.

pleas and exceptions will simplify procedure. Nevertheless, the demurrer has been retained in many codes, doubtless in recognition of the fact that a demurrer, or something substantially the same, is essential to any organized procedure.

Rule 12 must be examined in this connection. Subdivision (b) of that Rule provides that every defense, in law of fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that certain named defenses may, at pleader's option, be made by motion. In other words, where defendant has a defense both by way of alleged legal insufficiency of the complaint and by way of meeting it in fact, subdivision (b) of Rule 12 apparently calls for combining both such defenses in the answer, thereby eliminating any preliminary motion to strike the complaint, such as is in common use in states where the demurrer as such has been abolished. But the "defense in law" naturally partakes of the nature of a demurrer, whatever it may be designated, and inasmuch as "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" is one of the optional grounds for motion, it is possible to conclude that the past practice is not substantively changed with respect to the possibility of raising defenses at law prior to filing answer based on factual defense.

Inasmuch as the practitioner will continue to have use for authorities defining the scope of what is reached by the demurrer, or whatever equivalent may be provided, such are included in the note to Rule 12.

SOURCE AUTHORITIES

134. United States. 135.

- Federal Equity Rules. Former Federal Equity Rule 18 was as follows: "Unless otherwise prescribed by statute or these rules

the technical forms of pleading in equity are abolished."

Former Federal Equity Rule 29 was as follows: "Demurrers and pleas are abolished. Every defense in point of law arising upon the face of the bill, whether for misjoinder, nonjoinder, or insufficiency of fact to constitute a valid cause of action in equity, which might heretofore have been made by demurrer or plea, shall be made by motion to dismiss or in the answer; and every such point of law going to the whole or a material part of the cause or causes of action stated in the bill may be called up and disposed of before final hearing at the discretion of the court. Every defense heretofore presentable by plea in bar or abatement shall be made in the answer and may be separately heard and disposed of before the trial of the principal case in the discretion of the court. If the defendant move to dismiss the bill or any part thereof, the motion may be set down for hearing by either party upon five days' notice, and if it be denied, answer shall be filed within five days thereafter or a decree pro confesso entered."

136. Cases.

Referring to Federal Equity Rules 69, 18, 19, 34 and 46, the court said in Sheeler v. Alexander (D. C. O. 1913), 211 Fed. 545: "It would seem to be the spirit of these new equity rules that they were drawn by the Supreme Court with the intent of leaving the judge free to adjust matters in the interests of substantial justice, as he sees it, unhampered by precedent and by technical definitions and distinctions."

In Wilcox v. El Banco Popular (C. C. A. 1st, 1918), 255 Fed. 442, the court said: "The purpose sought to be accomplished by the general Equity Rules is that, if the substantial rights of the parties may be ascertained and determined accord

ing to the allegations contained in the pleadings, it is the duty of the court to consider and decide them without regard to the form in which they are presented, if they may be rightly understood."

Under Rule 18 it was held that if a bill were substantively good plaintiff need not amend formal deficiencies. Williams v. Pope (D. C. N. Y. 1914), 215 Fed. 1000.

Mistake in entitling held not material in view of the Rule. Activated Sludge, Inc. v. Sanitary District (C. C. A. 7th, 1929), 33 F. (2d) 452. 137.

Illinois.

138. - Statutory provisions.

Neither the names heretofore used to distinguish the different ordinary actions at law, nor any formal requisites heretofore appertaining to the manner of pleading in such actions respectively, shall hereafter be deemed necessary or appropriate,

and there shall be no distinctions respecting the manner of pleading between such actions at law and suits in equity, other than those specified in this Act and the rules adopted pursuant thereto; but this section shall not be deemed to affect in any way the substantial averments of fact necessary to state any cause of action either at law or in equity. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, § 155, 11; Jones Ann. Stat. 104.031.

All objections to pleadings heretofore raised by demurrer shall be raised by motion. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, § 169, 1; Jones Ann. Stat. 104.045.

144.

Kansas.

Statutory provisions.

The rules of pleading heretofore existing in civil actions are abolished; and hereafter the forms of pleading in civil actions in courts of record, and the rules by which their insufficiency may be determined, are those prescribed by this code. Rev. Stats. Kan. (1923) 60–702. 145. New York.

146. -Statutory provisions.

The demurrer is abolished. An objection to a pleading in point of law may be taken by motion for judgment as the rules provide. Cahill's New York Civil Practice Act, § 277.

ciple between the practice when objection to the sufficiency of a complaint was taken by demurrer and the present taking thereof by motion. Ansgorge v. Kane, 244 N. Y. 395, 155 N. E. 683, rev'g 216 App. Div. 841, 215 N. Y. Supp. 811.

Although the demurrer has been abolished the motion which has been substituted therefor must similarly point out the specific ground where the objection is to the lack of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. Yager v. Yager, 214 App. Div. 671, 212 N. Y. Supp. 707, rev'g 125 Misc. 773, 212 N. Y. Supp. 263.

149. Pennsylvania.

150.

Statutory provisions. Special pleading is hereby abolished. Purdon's Penn. Stats. (1936) Tit. 12, § 381.

Pleas in abatement, pleas of the general issue, payment, payment with leave, set-off, the bar of the statute of limitations, and all other pleas are abolished. Defenses heretofore raised by these pleas shall be made in the affidavit of defense. Purdon's Penn. Stats. (1936) Tit. 12, § 384.

Demurrers are abolished. Questions of law heretofore raised by demurrer shall be raised in the affidavit of defense. Purdon's Penn. Stats. (1936) Tit. 12, § 385.