Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bainbridge v. Stoner

California Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1940No. Sac. 5243Published

1Dissent

CARTER, J., Dissenting.

I dissent.

The opinion of my associates is to my mind inconsistent and erroneous in that it places an extremely strict construction upon the complaint of plaintiffs and yet at the same time it brushes aside a serious defect in defendants’ demurrer.

The complaint, it is true, is unartfully and loosely drawn, and the averments touching upon discovery of the fraud lack fullness and certainty. However, as noted in the majority opinion, the rules requiring full and complete allegation of the circumstances of delayed discovery of fraud have been somewhat relaxed in cases which…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. ScarboroughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Rutherford v. Rideout BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Lataillade v. OreñaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

9 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