Legal Opinion

Christensen v. Cram

California Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1909No. S.F. No. 5180PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

SHAW. J.

The action is to recover three hundred and fifty dollars on contract. The appeal is from the judgment upon the judgment-roll alone. The only question presented is the-sufficiency of the complaint.

The complaint was not verified, the answer was a, general denial, there was a trial by the court upon the merits, and a finding that all the allegations of the complaint were true.

The first contention of the appellant is that the complaint does not aver any promise, on the part of the defendant to pay the money sued for, nor any facts from which such promise would be implied by law. There is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blackwood v. Cutting Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Eaton v. RicheriCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Shainwald, Buckbee & Co. v. CadyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Kilpatrick-Koch Dry-Goods Co. v. BoxUtah Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Pettinger v. FastCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Woodbine v. Van HornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943
  3. Jones v. California Growers & Shippers, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Estate of EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  5. Stephens v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API