matters in the pleading are within the deponent's knowledge, they are true, and as to the residue, he is either informed or believes them to be true.22 A verification of an insufficient pleading will not aid it,23 nor prevent its being stricken out as sham.24

1 George v. McAvoy, 6 How. Pr. 200. And see State Bank of Olean v. Shaw, 5 Hun, 114.

2 Dawson v. Vaughn, 42 Ind. 395; Pudney v. Burkhart, 62 Ind. 179; Butler. Church, 14 Bush, 540; Hughes v. Feeter, 18 Iowa, 142. And see State v. Bath, 21 Kan, 583,

3 Payne v. Flournoy, 29 Ark, 500.

4 Dorrington v. Meyer, 8 Neb. 211, 214. A defect in a verification of a petition for divorce is not jurisdictional: Ellis v. White, 61 Iowa, 644.

5 Dorrington v. Meyer, 8 Neb. 214. And see Hayward v. Grant, 13 Minn. 165; Wilson v. Bennett, 2 Civ. Proc. R. 34; Schwarz v. Oppold, 74 N. Y. 307; Harris v. Ray, 15 Mon. B. 630. And the courts lean against objections on the ground of insufficient verification: Wilkin v. Gilman, 13 How. Pr. 225. Compare Knowles v. Fritz, 58 Wis. 216. 523; Strauss v. Parker, 9 How. Pr. 342;

6 See Code Civ. Proc.

Quin v. Tilton, 2 Duer, 648.

7 Code Civ. Proc. 523. And see Hempstead v. Hempstead, 7 How. Pr. 8; Winne v. Sickles, 9 How. Pr. 217; Crompton v. Crow, 2 Utah, 245; Reynolds v. Smothers, 87 N. C. 24. The answer in an action for libel need not be verified, although the complaint be verified: Wilson v. Bennett, 2 Civ. Proc. R. 34. See further as to when verification may be omitted: N. Y. Code Civ. Proc. 523; Molony v. Dows, 15 How. Pr. 261; 2 Hilt. 247; Fredericks v. Taylor, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 77 ; 52 N. Y. 596.

8 See Taber v. Gardner, 6 Abb. N. S. 147; Gray v. Kendall, 10 Abb. Pr. 66; 5 Bosw. 666.

9 Boston Locomotive Works v. Wright, 15 How. Pr. 253; Drevert v. Appsert, 2 Abb. Pr. 165; Gillet v. Houghton, 8 Wis. 311; Johnson v. Maxwell, 87 N. C. 18; N. Y. Code Civ. Proc. 525. Compare Purdon v. Carrington, 31 Ohio St. 168; Peyser v. McCormack, 51 How. Pr. 205; 7 Hun, 300.

11 N. Y. Code Civ.

10 Glaubensklee v. Hamburg etc. Packet Co. 9 Abb. Pr. 104; N. Y. Code Civ. Proc. 525, subd. 1; Bank v. Hutchison, 87 N. C. 22. Proc. 525, subd. 3; Market Nat. Bank v. Hogan, 21 Wis. 317. And see Hixon v. George, 18 Kan, 253. 12 N. Y. Code Civ. Proc. § 525, subd. 2.

13 N. Y. Code Civ. Proc. 526; Treadwell v. Fassett, 10 How. Pr. 184; Fitch v. Bigelow, 5 How. Pr. 237; Lyons v. Murat, 54 How. Pr. 23; Smith v. Mulliken, 2 Minn. 319; Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Neb, 108; Hyde v. Salg, 15 N. Y. Week. Dig. 211; 27 Hun, 369. A verification to a complaint made by an officer of a corporation need not set forth the reasons why it was not made by the party: Bank v. Hutchison, 87 N. C. 22.

15 Waggoner. Brown, 8 How. Pr. 212: Sexaner v. Bowen, 3 Daly, 405; 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 355; Tibballs v. Selfridge, 12 How. Pr. 64; Radway v. Mather, 5 Sand, 654.

16 Harnes v. Tripp, 4 Abb. Pr. 232; Orvis v. Goldschmidt, 64 How. Pr. 71; 2 Civ. Proc. R. 314.

17 Orvis v. Goldschmidt, 64 How. Pr. 71; 2 Civ. Proc. R. 314. And see Kinkaid v. Kipp, 1 Duer, 692; Ladue v. Andrews, 54 How. Pr. 160. 18 Orvis v. Goldschmidt, 64 How. Pr. 71; 2 Civ. Proc. R. 314.

19 Kinkaid v. Kipp, 1 Duer, 632. And see Crane v. Wiley, 14 Wis. 658; Market Nat. Bank v. Hogan, 21 Wis. 317.

20 Orvis v. Goldschmidt, 2 Civ. Proc. R. 314; 64 How. Pr. 71. See as to cases of defective verification: Tibballs v. Selfridge, 12 How. Pr. 64; Sexaner v. Bowen, 3 Daly, 405; 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 335; Williams v. Riel, 5 Duer, 601; 11 How. Pr. 374; Stadler v. Parmlee, 10 Iowa, 23. 21 See N. Y. Code Civ. Proc. 526; Truscott v. Dole, 7 How. Pr. 221. 22 Truscott v. Dole, 7 How. Pr. 221.

23 Farrington v. Wright, 1 Minn. 241.

24 Hayward v. Grant, 13 Minn. 165; Conway v. Wharton, 12 Minn. 158.

35. Formal parts of.-The complaint or petition should be written in ink or printed on paper or parchment, in the English language. The statements may be commenced in any simple and direct form, as, for instance, "the plaintiff complains and alleges," or "the plaintiff states," and the like." Matters of inducement merely, as that the plaintiffs or defendants are husband and wife, are not of the gravamen of the action, and properly precede the statement of any cause of action.+ And such matters of inducement, having been set out in the first count of the complaint, need not and should not be repeated, but merely referred to in the subsequent counts, although the subsequent counts are for distinct causes of action.5 When a complaint or petition contains more than one cause of action, each should be distinctly stated in a separate paragraph and plainly numbered. And each claim must not only stand by itself, but must be complete in itself. But if there be two causes of action stated in one paragraph, and the plaintiff proves one, he may recover for that without proving the other. Any mode of separating the several causes of action, which apprises the defendant of what is intended, would appear to be sufficient. They may

be distinguished by the phrase, "and for a further cause of action,” etc., or some other equivalent words.10 If distinct causes of action are not separated, motion, and not demurrer, is the proper remedy." The motion is to make the complaint or petition more definite and certain.12 Every pleading, including a complaint or petition, is required to be subscribed by the party or his attorney.13 The subscription may be either written or printed; 1 and it is held that the signature of the party to the verification is a sufficient subscription to the pleading.15 In practice, the attorney usually subscribes the pleading, and in New York, it is now provided that a pleading must be subscribed by the attorney for the party.16 A pleading served without having been subscribed should be returned with notice of the defect,17 and it must be promptly returned or the defect will be waived.18 It was not required that the declaration in common-law pleading should state the time when the suit was commenced, and it is not required in a complaint or petition under the Code system.19 No injury can accrue from its omission, since, if the action was in fact commenced before the cause of action became due, that may be shown on the trial, and it will be a good defense.20 The complaint or petition should, however, be dated, as a matter of convenience.21

1 See Fail v. Presley, 50 Ala. 342; Bracy v. Bracy, 12 Bush, 153; 2 Wait's Pr. 238.

2 Dunton v. Montoyo, 1 Colo. 99; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 185. Such abbreviations as are in common use may be used, and numbers may be expressed by figures or numerals in the customary manner: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 186.

3 2 Wait's Pr. 298; Miller Plead. & Pr. 140.

4 Abendroth v. Boardley, 27 Wis. 555.

5 Abendroth v. Boardley, 27 Wis. 555; Curtis v. Moore, 15 Wis. 134. And see Sinclair v. Fitch, 3 Smith, E. D. 677.

6 N. Y. Code Civ. Proc. & 483; Boeckler v. Mo. Pacific Railway Co. 10 Mo. App. 448, 450; Bonney v. Reardin, 6 Bush, 36; Henderson v. Jackson, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 293; 40 How. Pr. 168; Parsons v. Hayes, 4 N. Y. Law Bull. 31; Boles v. Cohen, 15 Cal. 12; Sharp v. Miller, 54 Cal. 329; Goldberg v. Utley, 60 N. Y. 427; Cruver v. Railw. Co. 62

Iowa, 460. See Madge v. Puig, 12 Hun, 18; Andrews v. Alcorn, 13 Kan. 351; Shaffe v. Maddox, 9 Neb. 205.

7 Benedict v. Seymour, 6 How. Pr. 298; Lattin v. McCarty, 17 How. Pr. 23); 8 Abb. Pr. 225; National Bank v. Green, 33 Iowa, 140; Reiners v. Brandhorst, 59 How. Pr. 91; Anderson v. Speers, 8 Abb. N. C. 382; Krutz v. Fisher, 8 Kan. 90; Boeckler v. Mo. Pac. Railway Co. 10 Mo. App. 448.

8 Noel v. Hudson, 13 Mon. B. 205. And see Boyle v. City of Brooklyn, 71 N. Y. 1; Wetmore v. Porter, 92 N. Y. 76.

9 Hall v. McKechnie, 22 Barb. 244.

10 Benedict v. Seymour, 6 How. Pr. 298; Natoma Water Co. v. Clarkin, 14 Cal. 547. See Pike v. Van Wormer, 5 How. Pr. 171; Durkee v. Saratoga etc. R. R. Co. 4 How. Pr. 226.

11 Everett v. Waymire, 30 Ohio St. 314; Freer v. Denton, 61 N. Y. 432; Bass v. Comstock, 36 How. Pr. 382; 38 N. Y. 21; Gardner v. Locke, 2 Civ. Proc. R. 252; Williams v. Langford, 15 Mon. B. 569. Compare Watson v. Railroad Co. 50 Cal. 523.

12 Commercial Bank v. Pfeiffer, 22 Hun, 327; Colton v. Jones, 7 Robt. 164, 649.

13 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 446; Dixey v. Pollock, 8 Cal. 572. An agent with power of attorney cannot subscribe: Wier v. Slocum, 3 How. Pr. 397.

14 Hancock v. Bowman, 40 Cal. 413; Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ross, 10 Abb. Pr. 260, n.

15 Hubbell v. Livingston, 1 Code R. 63. And see Conn. v. Rhodes, 26 Ohio St. 644.

17 Ehle v. Haller, 10 Abb. Pr. 287; 6 Bosw. 661. See Peckham v. Smith, 9 How. Pr. 441; Fritz v. Barnes, 6 Neb. 435; Gulf Railroad v. Owen, 8 Kan. 409.

18 Strauss v. Parker, 9 IIow. Pr. 342; Anderson v. Gurlay, 4 N. Y. Law Bull. 18.

19 Smith v. Holmes, 19 N. Y. 271; Maynard v. Talcott, 11 Barb. 569. 20 Maynard v. Talcott, 11 Barb. 569.

21 See 2 Wait's Pr. 301.

236. Separate counts or statements for a single cause of action.A cause of action is defined to be that right to a remedy which the law gives to a party injured by the wrongful act of another. The breach of duty is substantially the cause of action.2 Each cause of action is to be construed as a distinct pleading, and must stand or fall by itself. And it is an established rule of Code pleading, that facts which constitute a single

cause of action cannot be subdivided into two or more counts or statements. The Code system requires the pleading of a cause of action to be reduced to a plain

and concise statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, without unnecessary repetition.3 Since there can be but one substantially true statement of a single cause of action, the practice of setting it forth in different counts, as at common law, is necessarily abolished. Still, the court may allow the use of separate counts if a good reason exists for it. And when there really exists two distinct and separate grounds for claiming the relief demanded in the complaint, and the plaintiff states each one therein separately and plainly, or where he is uncertain as to the exact ground of recovery the proof may afford, he may frame a complaint for the recovery of a single claim in several distinct counts or statements, and the court will not compel him to elect between them. But generally speaking, if a plaintiff has really but one cause of action, and he sets it forth in several counts, he may on motion be compelled to elect upon which he will rely. If it appears from the face of the pleading that several counts therein are really for but one and the same cause of action, no affidavit or other proof is required; 10 but the rule is otherwise where this is not apparent from an inspection of the face of the pleading." In the latter case, the court must be satisfied by affidavit or other proof that the several statements of causes of action are but for one and the same cause, in order to warrant an order compelling an election or to strike out.12 If two distinct causes of action have been set forth in a complaint, it cannot be inferred that there is only a single cause of action, merely from the circumstances that the amounts claimed are precisely the same, and that the demand of judgment is but for the one sum.13

1 Cumberland Canal Co. v. Sherman, 30 Barb. 159; 8 Abb. Pr. 243; Graham Scripture, 26 How. Pr. 501; Meyer v. Van Collem, 28 Barb. 230, 231; Bank of Commerce v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co. 10 How. Pr. 1; 2 Wait's Pr. 353.