Greenfield v. Steamer Gunnell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin. The plaintiff filed his complaint, the body of which is in these words : “E. G. Greenfield, a citizen of-said county, complains of the steamer C. W. Gunnell, for that said steamer is justly indebted to him in the sum of §1118 87, for work and labor performed and materials furnished in the construction, repair, and refitting said boat in the years 1853 and ’54. That said sum is wholly due…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin. The plaintiff filed his complaint, the body of which is in these words : “E. G. Greenfield, a citizen of-said county, complains of the steamer C. W. Gunnell, for that said steamer is justly indebted to him in the sum of §1118 87, for work and labor performed and materials furnished in the construction, repair, and refitting said boat in the years 1853 and ’54. That said sum is wholly due and unpaid. Wherefore he prays that he have judgment against said steamer for said sum of §1118 87 and interest and costs,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydenfeldt
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
The objection to the want of verification to the declaration should have been made either before answer or with the answer. It comes too late after answer.
See Tooms v. Randall 3 Cal. R., 438.
The other objections should have been taken by demurrer. The declaration, although defective, alleges enough to free it from the charge of not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hill v. NerleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Pence v. DurbinIdaho Supreme Court · 1874
- Musso v. TriplettNevada Supreme Court · 1962
- Moore v. HuppIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
- Andrich v. AdelDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021