Mahe v. Reynolds
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifteenth District, City and County of San Francisco. At the time of filing and serving a demurrer and their answer, the defendants also served a notice of motion for a change of the place of trial. This motion was denied by tire Court below, on tire ground that the right to proceed therefor had been waived. This refusal constituted one of the grounds of appeal.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifteenth District, City and County of San Francisco. At the time of filing and serving a demurrer and their answer, the defendants also served a notice of motion for a change of the place of trial. This motion was denied by tire Court below, on tire ground that the right to proceed therefor had been waived. This refusal constituted one of the grounds of appeal. The second ground of appeal contained in the statement, is: “That the Court erred in striking out the defendant’s answer, because the complaint, not being verified, the answer was sufficient to…
1Opinion of the CourtSawyer, C. J.
The defects in the record have been cured. By the matter certified by the District Court, the statement appears to have been regularly filed.
The action is upon a promissory note, executed by defendant, Reynolds, in favor of Mahe and E. A. Lawrence, and alleged in the complaint to have been endorsed by Lawrence. A copy of the note and endorsement is annexed to the complaint. The complaint is not verified, nor is the answer, but the answer contains a general denial of all the allegations of the complaint.
“When an action is brought upon a written instrument, and the complaint contains a copy of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Estate of ChristensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Marks v. MunsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1915
- Ramos v. Lloveras SolerSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1927
- Ramos v. Lloveras-SolerSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1927