Hartman v. Williams
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District. . The complaint was for the violation, by the defendant, of a verbal contract, alleged to have been entered into by the •defendant, to employ the plaintiff and his wife, in the defendant’s service, and find them house-room and board for one year.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District. . The complaint was for the violation, by the defendant, of a verbal contract, alleged to have been entered into by the •defendant, to employ the plaintiff and his wife, in the defendant’s service, and find them house-room and board for one year. The breach complained of, was the discharge of the plaintiff and his wife from defendant’s service prior to the expiration of the year, by which the plaintiff suffered ■damages — himself and wife having been thrown out of employment, and deprived of board and shelter, and injured in various and divers ways, to…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. J. Heydeneeldt
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
The only question necessary to consider, is whether a judgment, final by default, can be rendered properly [256] upon an ^unliquidated demand. The practice is a new one, and appeared, at first, unfavorably. Upon an examination, however, of section 150 of the Practice Act, there remains no doubt as to its correctness, and when it is generally understood, we see no danger to be apprehended from it. The defendant being notified in the summons, of the amount for which the plaintiff will take judgment, is saved the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Johnson v. VanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890