
    Argued June 19,
    affirmed June 30, 1914.
    WARD v. HAMLIN.
    (142 Pac. 621.)
    Replevin—Pleading—Complaint.
    The failure of a complaint to recover personal property to allege that the property was in the eounty when the action was commenced cannot be reached by general demurrer.
    [As to what are local and transitory actions, see note in 22 Am. St. Rep. 22.]
    From Jackson: Frank M. Calkins, Judge.
    Department 2. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
    This is an action by Hilda Ward against W. H. Hamlin to recover personal property. The complaint did not state that the property in suit was in Jackson County at the time the action was commenced. The defendant demurred on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and, the demurrer being overruled, refused to plead further. Judgment was taken against him for want of an answer, from which he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. W. E. Phipps.
    
    For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Gus Newbury.
    
   Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice McBride.

This case is identical with the case of Marx & Jorgenson v. Croisan, 17 Or. 393 (21 Pac. 310), wherein it was held that a like defect in laying the venue could not be reached by a general demurrer. The elaborate opinion of Mr. Justice Lord in that case meets every contention urged by the appellant here. Were the matter res integra, a different conclusion might possibly be reached, but, as the rule there deliberately announced seems to dispose of what at best is an unprofitable technicality, we see no reason for departing from it.

The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice McNary concur.

Mr. Justice Eakin not sitting.  