Pavisich v. Bean
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Second Judicial District, County of Tehama. The complaint contained four counts; one for money loaned, and three for work and labor performed by the plaintiff and his assignors for the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Second Judicial District, County of Tehama. The complaint contained four counts; one for money loaned, and three for work and labor performed by the plaintiff and his assignors for the defendant. The third and fourth counts allege that the defendant was, on & day named, indebted to the plaintiff’s assignor, in a sum named, for work and labor before that time performed by the plaintiff’s assignor for the defendant, under ah agreement by which' the plaintiff’s assignor was to receive a sum named per month. The answer was a general denial. The testimony, on the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, McKinstry, J.:
The answer was a general denial. There was no plea of non-joinder of parties defendant, and the motion for non-suit was properly denied.
The third and fourth counts in the plaintiff’s complaint state a cause of action. (Wilkins v. Stidger, 22 Cal. 231; Abadie v. Carrillo, 32 Id. 172; Merritt v. Glidden, 39 Id. 564.)
Judgment affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilkins v. StidgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. MoranOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Solomon v. VinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Shade v. Sisson Mill & Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Sidney Stevens Implement Co. v. South Ogden Land, Building & Improvement Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1899
- Ball v. Fulton CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1876
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.