Legal Opinion

Hearst v. Hart

California Supreme Court

Decided April 5, 1900No. S.F. No. 1283PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

HAYNES, C.

Suit upon a promissory note, a copy of which was set out in the complaint, and the complaint verified. The defendant filed an unverified answer, as follows: “The defendant answers the complaint herein, and denies generally and specifically each and every allegation in said complaint contained.”

The plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, her motion was granted, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appeals.

1. Appellant contends that “the notice of motion did not specify any ground upon which the motion would he made.” The notice specified that it would be made…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McCullough v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  2. Hemme v. HaysCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Heydenfeldt v. JacobsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. French v. Smith Booth Usher Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
  2. H. G. Bittleston Law & Collection Agency v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Johnson v. Dixon Farms Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
  4. Fitts v. Mission Health & Beauty ShopCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  5. Central Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978

4 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