Watson v. San Francisco & Humboldt Bay Railroad
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action to recover $4973.62, alleged to be due for work and labor. The jury found for the plaintiff “$4365, gold coin.” The case came ujj on a bill of exceptions. The defendant appealed from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
At the argument, the complaint was assailed on the ground, first, that the several causes of action are not separately stated; second, that one of them is contra bonos mores, or against public policy. The only methods to which the defendant resorted in the court below to test the sufficiency of the complaint in these particulars, were, first, a motion to dismiss the action; second, a motion for judgment on the pleadings; both of which were properly denied, neither being an appropriate method of reaching the objection.
We cannot review the evidence, there being no specification of…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Belford v. WoodwardIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
- City of San Francisco v. Pacific BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Weisshand v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Hancock v. BuckleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Wasatch Irrigation Co. v. FultonUtah Supreme Court · 1901
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.