Herold v. Smith
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. This was an action to recover from the defendant the sum of seven hundred and six dollars and sixty-two cents, as a balance due upon a stated account, and for work and labor done and materials furnished.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. This was an action to recover from the defendant the sum of seven hundred and six dollars and sixty-two cents, as a balance due upon a stated account, and for work and labor done and materials furnished. The defendant, in his answer, denied each and every material allegation of plaintiff’s complaint, except that plaintiff did work and labor for defendant to the amount of five hundred and twenty-five dollars. The defendant then set up a counter claim in four counts, claiming that plaintiff was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
The plaintiff was not required, under the amendments of 1866, to deny the defendant’s counter claim in order to put Mm upon Ms proof. In respect to matter in avoidance and to counter claims, the rule is the same as before the amendments of 1866. Those amendments introduced a new pleading called a cross complaint. When the answer contains a *125cross complaint, it must be replied to, so far as the cross complaint is concerned, or the matters therein alleged will be taken as confessed. But in no other respect is the plaintiff required to reply to the answer.
Order…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Jones v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869