interpreting the rule that pleading should be “construed so as to do substantial justice” in an identically phrased provision in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e)
How later courts described this case
- interpreting the rule that pleading should be “construed so as to do substantial justice” in an identically phrased provision in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e)
- interpreting the rule that pleading should be “construed so as to do substantial justice” dn an identically phrased provision in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e)
- “Just what [Rule 8(e) ] means is not clear, but it excludes requiring technical exactness, or the making of refined inferences against the pleader, and requires an effort fairly to understand what he attempts to set forth.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOLMES, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring) .
I concur in the result but not in all the-language in the opinion. I think the statement, that cases are generally to be tried on the proofs rather than the pleadings, is-unnecessary and apt to be misleading. It is true that demurrers are abolished, but there is nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to keep issues of law from-being presented by the pleadings. The motion to dismiss may serve the' same purpose as a demurrer formerly did.
I think the following statement in the opinion is also pure dictum: “Expensive trials of meritless claims are sought to be avoided in the main by pretrial and summary judgment procedures.” There was-no motion for summary judgment in this case, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that a summary judgment would be proper. Then why suggest it ?