Safer Beef Co. v. Northern Boneless Beef, Inc.

Majority

p. 479

Safer Beef Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Northern Boneless Beef, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

A majority of us believe that from a reading of the complaint it does not appear that a cause of action is sufficiently stated within the requirement of subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Section 241 of the Civil Practice Act provides that every pleading shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts upon which a party relies. While pleadings are to be liberally construed, it is not intended to change the basic requirement that a complaint should contain such plain and concise statement as the afore-mentioned rule provides. The pleading, read in its entirety, might well contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. However “ The court should not be compelled to wade through a mass of verbiage and superfluous matter in order to pick out

p. 480

an allegation here and there, which, pieced together with other statements taken from another part of the complaint, will state a cause of action.” (Isaacs v. Washougal Clothing Co., 233 App. Div. 568 , 572.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.