Faure v. Drollinger
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.
Appellant Drollinger complains of many things in connection with the judgment of the lower court—his first contention being that his general demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint was overruled when it should have been sustained. He bases that conclusion on the premise that plaintiff intended to set up an alleged cause of action in claim and delivery, and he points out that in such an action possession in the defendant of the subject matter is both a proper as well as a necessary allegation in the complaint—which allegation, it is conceded by plaintiff, is altogether lacking. But plaintiff states…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Sherman v. SandellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Haight v. HaightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Tyler v. MayreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Butler v. AgnewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- Murphy v. StellingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Smith v. ArmstrongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- McIntyre v. HicksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Engler Instrument Co. v. Design Productioneering Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1965
- Otis v. Winter Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934
- Lacey v. McConnellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935