Aitken

The court below sustained defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint, without leave to amend, and thereafter entered a judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff appeals, and the sole question is as to the sufficiency of the complaint.

Preliminarily it may be noted that the demurrer was both general and special; it may be further noted that no serious contention is made on the point that the court did not permit plaintiff to further amend.

Appellant states in his brief that the action was brought for the recovery of interest and penalties under the Usury Law; recovery of money paid under duress; recovery of damages for fraud. We note this statement merely as indicative of appellant’s own idea of his cause of action.

We will summarize and analyze the pleading before us and in so doing will employ the less confusing form of narrative. The complaint was filed December 15, 1928. A certain corporation called the Rock Company was in existence during all of the year 1926, and during all of April of that year Mr. Davison was the vice-president and a director of said corporation.

On April 9, 1926, plaintiff agreed with the Rock Company /to purchase all of its property for the…