Legal Opinion

Runk v. San Diego Flume Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1898No. L. A. No. 4PublishedCited by 13 opinions

APPEAL from Superior Court, San Diego County; E. S. Torrance, Judge. Action by J. B. Runk against the San Diego Plume Company and others for malicious prosecution. Prom a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

1Opinion of the Court

VANCLIEF, C.

Action to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. A demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that it does not state a cause of action, that in specified particulars it is uncertain, and that two causes of action are improperly joined therein, was sustained by the trial court; and thereupon, plaintiff declining to amend his complaint, judgment passed for defendants. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and contends that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The following is a copy of the complaint: “(1) That on the nineteenth day of July, A. D. 1894, the said…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Eastin v. Bank of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Dreux v. DomecCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  3. Krause v. SpiegelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Stephens v. ConleyMontana Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Simoneau v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  3. W. States Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bayside Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Addy v. StewartIdaho Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Steinberger v. California Electric Garage Co.California Supreme Court · 1917

8 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