Whittaker v. E. E. McCalla Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BURROUGHS, J., pro tem.
This is an action to rescind a contract for the purchase and sale of real property. When the cause was called for trial on the issues of fact joined by the pleadings, the court, upon the objection of the defendant, refused to allow the plaintiff to introduce any evidence, on the ground that the amended complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Such ruling was equivalent to an order sustaining a general demurrer. (Moore v. Douglas, 132 Cal. 399 [64 Pac. 705] ; Spaeth v. Ocean Park etc. Inv. Co., 16 Cal. App. 329 [116 Pac. 980].) Judgment…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Moore v. DouglasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Taback v. GreenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Panter v. National Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
- Peiser v. BradburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Spaeth v. Ocean Park Realty Mining & Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
3Cited by1 opinion
- Thomas Tabor and Agnes F. Tabor v. Teresa C. UlloaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963