Hensley v. Tartar
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. The form of the denial, aside from that quoted by the Court, is: “ This defendant further says, that he makes a specific denial of each allegation in the said complaint contained, with the exception of such qualifications and exceptions as may occur in this answer.” The balance of the answer, in substance, admits possession, and avers that it was legally obtained.
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
This is an action of ejectment. The complaint is verified and *509sets forth facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover. Tiny defendants answer separately, but the denials contained in the answers are general and not specific. The defendant, Hanson, admits that he was in possession of the premises when the suit was brought, and denies generally the other allegations of the complaint. .He, however, disclaims any title to, or interest in, the premises in controversy. Defendant, Tartar’, in the first place, denies the allegations of the complaint in the following general form: “And now…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Goldwater v. OltmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Harshbarger v. EbyIdaho Supreme Court · 1916
- Hayes v. Silver Creek & Panoche Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
- Scovill v. BarneyOregon Supreme Court · 1872
- Fish v. RedingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.