« 이전계속 »
1. Amendment-Construction.--This provision is but a direction to compel the joining of issues within a reasonable time so as to expedite the trial of actions. It is still discretionary with the court whether it will allow defendant any time to answer.
To say that because a complaint is amended the defendant has the absolute right to time and to the postponement of the case to plead to the amendment, states
rule too broadly.--Lincoln County Bank v. Fetterman, 170 Cal. 357, 149 Pac. 811.
2. Pleadings may be amended to conform to the proofs during and even after the trial.--Stohlman v. Martin, 28 Cal. App. 338, 152 Pac. 319.
3. Denial information and belief. The allegation of the corporate capacity and existence of the plaintiff in an action can not be successfully denied upon information and belief because, perchance, the plaintiff had failed to pay its license tax and might therefore, unknown to the defendant, have lost its corporate character by operation of law. The statutory acts required to be performed in conjunction with the failure to pay the license tax (proclamation of forfeiture), before a forfeiture of the corporate franchise will occur, must become matters of public record, and when the existence of an alleged fact may be ascertained from an inspection of the public record, its existence can not be put in issue by a denial based solely upon information and belief.-William Wilson Co. v. Trainor, 27 Cal. App. 43, 148 Pac. 954.
4. In an action by the mortgagee against the consignee of the mortgagor to recover the proceeds of the crop, a denial upon information and belief of the execution of the mortgage is sufficient to raise an issue thereon, notwithstanding the defendant had constructive notice of its recordation.Crosby v. Fresno Fruit Growers' Co., 30 Cal. App. 308, 158 Pac. 1070.
appearing must be raised by answer.--It is only where the complaint affirmatively discloses that the right of action is necessarily barred by the statute of limitations that a demurrer on the ground of the bar of the statute may be taken.—Pike v. Zadig, 171 Cal. 273, 152 Pac. 923.
1. Waiver or cure of defects.-Where cause of action for wrongful death is defectively stated and subject to the objection that it is uncertain and ambiguous as to the particular negligence upon which the plaintiff relies, such defect is cured by the introduction in evidence, without specific objection of those facts which, if alleged, would have made the pleading sufficient to withstand the attack of a general demurrer.Boyle v. Coast Imp. Co., 27 Cal. App. 714, 151 Pac. 25.
2. The objection that a pleading is ambiguous and uncertain can not be availed of on appeal in the absence of a special demurrer.—Merrill v. Kohlberg, 29 Cal. App. 382, 155 Pac. 824.
1. Setting up counterclaims. The law abhors a multiplicity of actions, and the evident intent of the legislature in passing the code provisions relating to counterclaims was that all matters that may be the subject of litigation between the parties within the limitations prescribed shall be settled in one action.-Calara Valley Realty Co. v. Smith, 29 Cal. App. 589, 156 Pac. 369.
2. In an action for the recovery of a balance due on an open book account the failure of the defendant to expressly admit or deny the allegations of the complaint does not deprive him of the right to set up a counterclaim growing out of contract as an offset, notwithstanding that it exceeds the amount of plaintiff's demand and that no affirmative judgment is asked for by defendant.-Calara Valley Realty Co. v. Smith, 29 Cal. App. 589, 156 Pac. 369.
3. It is the better course, in an action on an open book account, for a defendant who has a counterclaim to expressly admit the indebtedness pleaded by the plaintiff and set up his counterclaim as a special defense by way of avoidance.-Calara Valley Realty Co. v. Smith, 29 Cal. App. 589, 156 Pac. 369.
4. The pleading of a counterclaim without directly denying the allegations of the complaint is sufficient to tender an issue upon the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for the full amount of the claim or any part thereof upon which he has sued, and the right to support such special defense is not affected by the fact that the alleged counterclaim exceeds that of the debt sued for by the plaintiff and that the defendant asks for no affirmative relief. -Calara Valley Realty Co. v. Smith, 29 Cal. App. 589, 156 Pac. 369.
ANSWER. 1, 2. As to what must contain. 3, 4. Denial on information and belief.
1. As to what must contain.- Where complaint is directed against two persons, and the liability of one involves some facts which are not material to the liability of the other, upon the cause of action declared upon, and they answer separately, neither is required to answer those allegations which relate to the sole liability of the other.Robson v. Superior Court, 171 Cal. 588, 154 Pac. 8.
2. In an action on a promissory note the assignment of the instrument to the plaintiff can not be questioned by the defendant under a general denial of assignment without any allegation of matter by way of special defense.-Rucker v. Carpenter, 29 Cal. App. 678, 157 Pac. 524.
American Nat. Bank v. Donnellan, 170 Cal, 9,
148 Pac. 188. SETTING OFF CLAIMS.
3. It is permissible to separately plead 1, 2. Construction, what constitutes a set-off.
inconsistent defenses.—Dibble v. Reliance 3. Set-off between executor and legatee.
Life Ins. Co., 170 Cal. 199, 149 Pac. 171. 4-7. Setting off mutual demands.
4. Counterclaim in amended answer. 1. Construction-What constitutes a set
The superior court has legal authority to off.-A proceeding to obtain an order di
deny a defendant the privilege to file an anrecting the payment of an allowed claim
swer after he has interposed a demurrer is an "action" within section 438 and this
and it has been overruled.—Leavell v. Susection.—Estate of Bell, 168 Cal. 253, 141
perior Court, 27 Cal. App. 191, 149 Pac. 372. Pac. 1179.
5. A valid and subsisting counterclaim 2. This section “is not intended to and
may be presented by amended answer.-Caldoes not affect the negotiability of commer
ara Valley Realty Co. v. Smith, 29 Cal. App. cial paper, or the rights of bona fide trans
589, 156 Pac. 369. ferees of such paper."-Kunz v. California Tuna Co., 169 Cal. 348, 146 Pac. 883.
§ 446. 3. Set-off between executor and legatee.
VERIFICATION. --A judgment in favor of a testator's estate
1-5. As to generally. against a legatee should be set off on dis
6-8. Unverified answer to verified complaint, tribution against the distributive share. An
effect. assignee of the legatee, under an assign
9. Waiver of signature. ment made after the judgment was recovered, took subject to the right of set-off 1. As to generally.--The clause providing existing in favor of the estate.-Estate of for verification by an officer, when a corpoGamble, 166 Cal. 253, 135 Pac. 970.
ration is a party is not exclusive, but perSetting off mutual demands.--The fact missive only, and does not prevent an that one of the cross-demands has been re- attorney or other person from making the duced to judgment, while the other has not, verification in a proper case. The clause is is no obstacle to the allowance of a set-off. qualified by the preceding part of the sec- Machado v. Borges, 170 Cal. 501, 150 Pac. tion and is not a limitation that only officers 351.
of a corporation can verify the pleadings.5. The plaintiff, in an action to recover Bittleston Law & Collection Agency v. Howupon certain promissory notes made and de- ard, 172 Cal. 357, 156 Pac. 515. livered to him by the defendant, is entitled
2. A verification of an amended complaint to have a judgment obtained against him made by the assignor of the plaintiff, which by the defendant set off, against his claim declares that the aifant is the assignor of on the notes, notwithstanding the judgment plaintiff in the above-entitled action, and for has been assigned by the defendant to his that reason is better informed as to the attorney to secure him for attorney fees and facts thereof than the said plaintiff; that he costs incurred in the action in which the has read the foregoing complaint and knows judgment was rendered, and that such at- the contents thereof, and that the same is torney took the assignment without knowl- true of his own knowledge, except edge of the plaintiff's claim.--Machado V. matters which are therein stated on inforBorges, 170 Cal. 501, 150 Pac. 351.
mation and belief, and as to those matters 6. The plaintiff is not precluded from as- that he believes it to be true," fully meets serting his right of set-off by his failure to the requirements of section 446 of the Code set up his notes by way of counterclaim in of Civil Procedure, and sufficiently shows the suit brought against him by the maker that the facts are within the knowledge of of the notes, since the mutual demands did the affiant, and sufficiently states the reasnot arise out of the same transaction.-Ma- ons why the verification was not made by chado v. Borges, 170 Cal. 501, 150 Pac. 351. one of the parties. --Bittleston Law & Col
7. A court of equity will compel a set-off lection Agency v. Howard, 172 Cal. 357, 156 of mutual demands, where such relief is Pac. 515. necessary to enable the party claiming the 3. Where a pleading contains no averrelief to collect his claim.-Machado V. ments on information and belief, the added Borges, 170 Cal. 501, 150 Pac. 351.
words in the affidavit of verification “except
as to matters which are therein stated on § 441.
information or belief," do not qualify the ANSWER WITH SEVERAL GROUNDS OF
positive character of the verification as to DEFENSE.
the truth of the allegations of the com1. As to pleading in separate counts.
plaint.—Bittleston Law & Collection Agency
v. Howard, 172 Cal. 357, 156 Pac. 515. 2, 3. As to inconsistent defenses.
4. It is not vital to such a verification 4, 5. Counterclaim in amended answer.
that the affidavit specify in formal charac1. As to pleading in separate counts.- terization the facts constituting the reasons The defendant in ejectment has the right to why it is not made by the party, where plead his defenses in separate counts.- such reasons can be gathered from all the Schader v. White, 173 Cal. 441, 160 Pac. 557. facts stated in the affidavit, when read in
2. As to inconsistent defenses—The de- the light of the pleading.–Bittleston Law fendant may set forth as many defenses as & Collection Agency v. Howard, 172 Cal. he has, even though they be inconsistent.- 357, 156 Pac. 515.
5. Where an unverified answer is filed to section 448 of the Code of Civil Procedure. such a verified complaint, a motion for judg- -Quartz Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Joyce, 27 Cal. ment on the pleadings without a prelimin- App. 523, 150 Pac. 648. ary motion to strike the answer from the files, is proper.-Bittleston Law & Collec- 8 452. tion Agency v. Howard, 172 Cal. 357, 156 Pac.
RULES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 515.
Unverified answer to verified complaint, effect.-Where a verified complaint is
1-4. Liberally construed to promote justice.
5. Presumptions as to references in. served and the answer is unverified the plaintiff is entitled
6. Presumptions against pleader. to have the answer stricken out on motion and a judgment by 1. Liberally construed to promote jusdefault entered, or in the absence of an or- tice.—Pleas in abatement are not favored der striking out the answer, to a judgment and should be judged with strictness.for want of an answer.-Johnson v. Dixon Scheeline v. Moshier, 172 Cal. 565, 158 Pac. Farms Co., 29 Cal. App. 52, 155 Pac. 134.
222. 7. It is not a rule of pleading that an un- 2. Pleadings are no longer to be converified answer to a verified complaint ad- strued against the pleader, but are to be mits all of the allegations of the complaint liberally construed with a view to promotto be true in the absence of a reasonable ing justice. Burian v. Los Angeles Cafe Co., objection to the failure of the defendant to 173 Cal. 625, 161 Pac. 4. verify his answer; the remedy of the plain- 3. Where under the old common-law systiff in such a contingency is to move the tem a pleading would crumble under the trial court to strike out the answer or for weight of a demurrer, under the advanced judgment upon the pleadings for want of system which concerns itself more with suban answer, and if the case goes to trial and stance, the same pleading might reasonably is heard and determined upon the issues he held sufficient to state a cause of action. purporting to have been raised by the plead- From an averment that the plaintiff sold the ings of the parties without a previous ob- hay to the defendant the fact of delivery jection upon the part of the plaintiff to lack is implied, and while not strictly a proper of verification of the defendant's answer, manner of stating a case for goods sold and the defect will be deemed to have been delivered is nevertheless sufficient.-Johnson waived.—Hill V. Merle & Co., 29 Cal. App. v. Dixon Farms Co., 29 Cal. App. 52, 155 Pac. 473, 156 Pac. 981.
134. 8. An unverified answer to a verified
4. A pleading styled a “bill to redeem" complaint may be disregarded and treated may in fact be a bill to quiet the complainas sham upon a motion for judgment on the ants' alleged title to the land in question.pleadings.—Consolidated Music Co. v. Morri- Power & Irr. Co. of Clear Lake v. Capay son, 30 Cal. App. 303, 158 Pac. 342.
Ditch Co., 226 Fed. 634. 9. Waiver of signature.—An objection
5. Presumptions as to references in.that the complaint was not signed by the Paragraphs of a complaint which contain plaintiff or his attorney is waived where
averments referring to other parts of the the objection is not made in the trial court.
pleading are presumed to refer to prior por-Hellings v. Wright, 29 Cal. App. 649, 156 tions only.-Richmond Construction Co. v. Pac. 365.
Doe, 29 Cal. App. 427, 155 Pac. 1008.
Presumptions against pleader.-If 8 448.
complaint makes no allegation as to when 1. Affidavit required to be fled, when.- the plaintiff became of age, it will be preWhere the due execution and delivery of a sumed that each one of them was sui juris deed are denied by the answer and cross- for a sufficient length of time to allow the complaint, and the plaintiff in his answer to statute of limitations to run prior to the the cross-complaint sets out the deed in filing of the complaint.--Earhart v. Churchhaec verba, the defendant does not admit ill Co., 169 Cal. 728, 147 Pac. 942. the execution and delivery thereof where he fails to file the affidavit of this section, as 8 454. it would have been a vain and useless exac
STATING ACCOUNT IN PLEADING. tion to require a further denial of the ef
1-4. Common counts. fect of the writing.–Cox v. Schnerr, 172
5. Bill of particulars. Cal. 371, 156 Pac. 509.
6. -As evidence. 2. In an action by a corporation to re
7. Not vulnerable to special demurrer. cover upon a promissory note, the genuineness and due execution of a written agree
1. Common counts.-A complaint in an ment set up as a defense to the action, made action for the recovery of money, which albetween the plaintiff and the defendant at leges that the defendants became indebted the time of the making of the note, provid- to the plaintiff for money had and received ing that payment thereof should be made by them for the use and benefit of the plainout of dividends to be declared upon certain tiff in two given sums, is a sufficient pleadshares of the capital stock for the purchase ing under the old form known as a "comprice of which the note was given, is deemed mon count."-Pike v. Zadig, 171 Cal. 273, admitted, where no affidavit denying the 152 Pac. 923. genuineness and due execution of such in- 2. If the question were new, there might strument is filed or served as provided by be ground for saying that the common
counts do not comply with the provisions of delivered, wherein the controversy related our Code of Civil Procedure, section 426, to the quantity of lumber delivered and not that the complaint must contain "a state- to the prices charged with respect to the ment of the facts constituting the cause of various items, there is no error in permitting action, in ordinary and concise language"; a bill of particulars compiled from certain but the practice of pleading in this form books produced in court containing the orighas been too long established in this state inal charges, to be used in connection with to be now open to question.--Pike v. Zadig. the testimony of the manager of the lumber 171 Cal. 273, 276, 152 Pac. 923. See Free- company, where the admission in evidence born v. Glazer, 10 Cal. 337; Wilkins v. Stid- and use of such bill were distinctly stated ger, 22 Cal. 232, 83 Am. Dec. 64; Abadie v. by the court to be for purposes of conveniCarrillo, 32 Cal. 172; Merritt v. Glidden, 39 ence and the saving of time, and it is shown Cal. 564, 2 Am. Rep. 479 (but not good by such witness that the books were kept against a special demurrer for unintelligi- under his direction and that they were corbility or uncertainty); Pavisichi v. Bean, 48 rect.--Montgomery & Mullen Lumber Co. v. Cal. 364; Magee v. Kast, 49 Cal. 145; De la Ocean Park Scenic R. Co., 32 Cal. App. 32, Guerra v. Newhall, 55 Cal. 23; Quimby v. 161 Pac. 1171. Lyon, 63 Cal. 394, 395; Castagnino V. Bal
Not vulnerable to special demurrer.letta, 3 Cal. Unrep. 107, 21 Pac. 1097, af- "There have been intimations in this court firmed 82 Cal. 250, 257, 23 Pac. 127: Farwell
that such a pleading, although not obnoxv. Murray, 104 Cal. 464, 38 Pac. 199; Pleas
ious to a general demurrer, might fall beant v. Samuels, 114 Cal. 34, 45 Pac. 998; fore a special demurrer on the ground of Shade v. Sessions Mill & L. Co., 115 Cal. 357, uncertainty. We think, however, that there 367, 47 Pac. 135 (not good as against a spe- is no force in this suggestion. If there be cial demurrer for ambiguity or uncertainty); any objection to the common count, it is Minor v. Baldridge, 123 Cal. 187, 190, 55 Pac. that the pleading states conclusions of law 783 (good in absence of special demurrer); instead of setting forth the facts upon Gregory v. Clabrough, 129 Cal. 475, 62 Pac. which the paintiff relies. The real ground 72; Brown v. Crown Gold Milling Co., 150 of objection, therefore, is that the complaint Cal. 376, 89 Pac. 86; Miller v. Abrahamson, does not state facts sufficient to constitute 9 Cal. App. 397, 99 Pac. 535.
a cause of action. But, as we have seen, 3. "That the common counts may be re- this objection is not maintainable."-Pike v. sorted to in actions on contracts within cer- Zadig, 171 Cal. 273, 276, 152 Pac. 923. tain defined limits, has been too long and too well settled in this state to be subject to $ 458. further debate or controversy it is only nec
1. Pleading statute of limitations.--An essary to refer to the cases which adjudge
allegation in an amended complaint, in an this to be the law-a course of decision
action for money due on an open account, which commenced in this court at an early
that the indebtedness arose "within four day in its history, following the rulings of
years last past" sufficiently negatives the the courts of New York on a statute similar
statute of limitations.-Pike v. Zadig, 171 to our own, and which has continued to the
Cal. 273, 152 Pac. 923. present time."—Castagnino V. Balletta, 82
2. An allegation in a complaint that the Cal. 250, 267, 23 Pac. 127, affirming 3 Cal.
indebtedness accrued "within four years last Unrep. 107, 21 Pac. 1097, and citing De Boom
past," instead of within four years prior to v. Priestly, 1 Cal. 206; Reynolds v. Jordan, 6 Cal. 108, and O'Connor v. Dingley, 26
the commencement of the action, does not
render it demurrable on the ground of the Cal. 20.
bar of the statute of limitations.—Pike y. 4. This rule has been recognized and
Zadig, 171 Cal. 273, 152 Pac. 923. acted on in most states where the code prac
3. It is not necessary that a demurrer, tice has been adopted.-Pleasant v. Samuels,
raising the statute of limitations, should 114 Cal. 34, 37, 45 Pac. 998. See Ball v. Ful
specify any particular section of the statute. ton County, 31 Ark. 379; Solomon v. Vinson,
-Spreckels v. Spreckels, 172 Cal. 775, 158 31 Minn. 206 (a well-established rule of
Pac. 537. pleading in code states); Pioneer Fuel Co. v. Hagar, 57 Minn. 77, 47 Am. St. Rep. 575, 58 N. W. 828 (but common counts must be such as would have been good at common law); 1. Libel and slander-Complaint in action Allen v. Patterson, 7 N. Y. 476, 57 Am. Dec. of.-When language is actionable and it 542; Cudlipp v. Whipple, 4 Duer (N. Y.) 610; does not appear that it is privileged, it is Busta v. Wardall, 3 S. D. 141, 52 N. W. 418; presumed to be both false and malicious, and Ankeny v. Clark, 1 Wash. 549, 20 Pac. 583; no other evidence of falsehood or malice is Grannis v. Hooker, 29 Wis. 65.
necessary than the publication itself, the 5. Bill of particulars.-It is no objection burden being upon the defendant to prove to a complaint that the times when the in- the truth of the charge.-Adams v. Cameron, debtedness, or the various items thereof, ac- 27 Cal. App. 625, 150 Pac. 1005. crued are not set forth, as further informa- 2. Where the complaint in an action for tion may be obtained by a demand for a libel, based upon an alleged written notice bill of particulars.-Pike v. Zadig, 171 Cal. sent by the defendants to a bank charging 273, 152 Pac. 923.
the plaintiff with insolvency, fails to set out 0. -As evidence.-In an action to recover the specific words in which the notice was an alleged balance due for lumber sold and framed, and only states the effect of such
ing.-Riley v. Evening Post Pub. Co., 30 Cal. App. 294, 158 Pac. 225.
words, it is proper to enter an order sustaining special demurrer addressed to such omission.—Des Granges v. Crall, 27 Cal. App. 313, 149 Pac. 777.
3. A complaint in such an action based upon written notices sent to certain corporations, instructing them not to pay any money to the plaintiff nor to transfer any stock to him, fails to state a cause of action, notwithstanding the pleading of an innuendo indicating a hidden meaning to be drawn from such notices.-Des Granges V. Crall, 27 Cal. App. 313, 149 Pac. 777.
4. An innuendo must not introduce new matter or enlarge the natural meaning of words, and if the meaning of the language is plain
innuendo is needed.-Des Granges v. Crall, 27 Cal. App. 313, 149 Pac. 777.
5. A complaint in an action for libel based upon the publication of an article in a newspaper having reference to divorce action, which alleges that the plaintiff in the divorce action in his complaint accused his wife of having two "affinities" of whom the plaintiff in the action for libel is one, states a cause of action.-Riley v. Evening Post Publishing Co., 30 Cal. App. 294, 158 Pac. 225.
6. A complaint in action for libel, brought by the lessee and manager of a theater against the publisher of a newspaper for the publication of an article concerning the relations of a certain person with the chorus girls employed at the theater, which erroneously states that such person was the manager of the theater, but which makes no reference to the plaintiff, fails to state a cause of action for general damages, for the article is not libelous per se, and in the absence of an averment of special damages, no recovery can be had thereon.--Pollock v. Evening Herald Pub. Co., 28 Cal. App. 786, 154 Pac. 30.
7. An allegation in the complaint that the defendants are the owners of the newspaper in which the article was published, and that on the day specified they published therein concerning the plaintiff the article set forth in the complaint, is a sufficient averment of publication by the defendants. -Bonestell v. Shaw, 28 Cal. App. 226, 151 Pac. 1149.
8. A complaint in an action for damages for the publication of an alleged libel concerning an attorney at law is not subject to general demurrer, where the language of the article upon its face accuses the plaintiff of unprofessional conduct, the natural effect of which is to expose him to obloquy and to injure him in his business.-Bonestell v. Shaw, 28 Cal. App. 226, 151 Pac. 1149.
1. Failure to deny allegations, effect of.The failure of a mortgagor in an action to foreclose against him and a subsequent purchaser to deny an allegation that the purchaser agreed to assume and pay the mortgage as a part of the consideration of the deed to him does not constitute an admission of such assumption so far as concerns the mortgagor and the plaintiff.-Hibernia Savings & L. Soc. v. Dickinson, 167 Cal. 616, 140 Pac, 265.
2. In an action a promissory note where the answer sets up a counterclaim for professional services, there is no necessity for further pleading, as the counterclaim is deemed denied. Neither was it necessary to plead the statute of limitations against the counterclaim, as this is deemed pleaded by operation of law.-Pacific Imp. Co. v. Maxwell, 26 Cal. App. 265, 146 Pac. 900.
3. In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage by an assignee thereof, a motion for nonsuit based upon the ground that plaintiff had failed to produce evidence of the assignment of the note and mortgage is properly denied, where the due execution and delivery of the note and mortgage and the due assignment thereof to plaintiff are alleged in the verified complaint and no denial thereof is made in the answer.-Dunn V. Warden, 28 Cal. App. 202, 151 Pac. 671.
4. Where, in an action on a promissory note, the execution of the note is not denied in the answer, no evidence of due execution is necessary.—Miller & Lux v. Dunlap, 28 Cal. App. 313, 152 Pac. 309.
5. Where the complaint expressly avers the nonpayment of notes, and the defendant does not negative the averment except by his construction of the written agreement, the payment of the notes is not sufficiently put in issue.--Minor v. Carpenter, 28 Cal. App. 368, 152 Pac. 737.
6. Where the complaint in an action for breach of an agreement to purchase gloves alleges that the nearest market for them was in New York City, and this allegation is not denied in the answer, it must be considered as admitted that New York was the nearest market, and therefore the defendant will not be heard to complain that there was no evidence of the market value of the gloves in Jersey City, where delivery was to be made under the terms of the contract.—Merrill v. Kohlberg, 29 Cal. App. 382, 155 Pac. 824.
1. Supplemental pleadings. — It is the 1. Libel and slander-Answer-Plea of function of a supplemental complaint to set privilege.--In actions for libel, the plea of up facts material to the case occurring after privilege is defensive matter, which can not the filing of the former complaint. A new be raised on demurrer, unless the complaint and distinct cause of action can not be set affirmatively shows that the report com- up by way of supplemental complaint.-plained of as libelous is a fair and true re- Young v. Matthew Turner Co., 168 Cal. 671, port, without malice, of a judicial proceed- 143 Pac. 1029.