Greenebaum v. Taylor
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
This is an action to recover the value of certain personal property alleged to have been converted by defendants. The verdict was for plaintiffs in the sum of four hundred and seventy-five dollars, for which sum they had judgment. Defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying a new trial.
The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled. It was upon the ground that the complaint “ is ambiguous, unintelligible, and uncertain,” for the reason that it does not contain a sufficient description of the property sued for. It is clearly not ambiguous or unintelligible; therefore,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kraner v. HalseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Angell v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- White v. AllattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by15 opinions
- Bacigalupi v. Phoenix Building & Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1910
- Travis Glass Co. v. IbbetsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Yoakam v. HoganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Givens v. MarkallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Fishel v. F.M. Ball Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1927
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.