Legal Opinion

Irrgang v. Ott

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 28, 1908No. Civ. No. 513PublishedCited by 10 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment on the verdict of a jury awarding damages to a plaintiff for in juries received by him through the negligence of defendant. Defendant appeals from the judgment on bill of exceptions.

1. It is first contended that the demurrer to the complaint for ambiguity and uncertainty should have been sustained. We think the complaint shows clearly enough that defendant was sued as an individual, although it is alleged, quite unnecessarily, that he was a stockholder and president of the company that had engaged plaintiff to paint its house. This averment was superfluous,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bank of Lemoore v. FulghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Plyer v. Pac. Portland Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Empire Gold Mining Co. v. Bonanza Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Froman v. RousIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Graeber v. DerwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Stein v. United R.R. of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Perry v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Malone v. ClemowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. Bergen v. Tulare County Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Latky v. WolfeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API