Legal Opinion

Gilman v. Bootz

California Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1883PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

1Per curiam

The court below must have denied the motion for a nonsuit on the ground that the answer failed to deny the allegations of the complaint, except as to the assignment to the plaintiff. In so construing the answer the court misconceived its meaning. The answer denied that the sale was for eight hundred dollars in gold coin, as alleged in the complaint, and then proceeded to aver that the contract of sale was for four hundred dollars in money, and four hundred dollars to be paid in boarding the plaintiff. This was in legal effect to deny that the sale was for eight hundred dollars, or on any…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Scott v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Shamp v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API