Farwell v. Murray
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion. The court erred in denying defendant’s application for a jury trial. (Code Civ.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion. The court erred in denying defendant’s application for a jury trial. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 631; Const., art. I, sec. 7; Proffatt on Jury Trials, secs. 110-12; Sweeney v. Stanford, 60 Cal. 362.) The demurrer should have been sustained on the ground of uncertainty, as it is impossible to tell from the complaint what is claimed to .be due for goods sold, and how much for labor performed. The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled, as defendant had…
1Opinion of the Court
Belcher, C.
The plaintiffs. brought this action to recover the sum of five hundred and fifty-six dollars .and forty-two cents for and on account of work done and labor performed by plaintiffs for defendant, and if or and on account of goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendant.
The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the grounds that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that it was uncertain and unintelligible, for the reason that it could not be determined therefrom how much of the sum alleged to be due was for work and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Biggs v. LloydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by17 opinions
- Chessman v. HaleMontana Supreme Court · 1905
- Pleasant v. SamuelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Ballenger v. TillmanMontana Supreme Court · 1958
- People v. Metropolitan Surety Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- State ex rel. Nichols v. CherryUtah Supreme Court · 1900
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.