# Treanor v. Williams

> California Supreme Court · November 12, 1904 · 145 Cal. 315

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3307875

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Contested Election of THOMAS W. TREANOR, Contestee, Appellant, v. C. R. WILLIAMS, Contestant, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 12, 1904
- **Citations:** 145 Cal. 315; 78 P. 884; 1904 Cal. LEXIS 590
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Shaw
- **Judges:** Shaw, Beatty, McFarland
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3307875

## Opinion text

SHAW, J., concurring.
I concur in the judgment on the ground that- the case having been tried and submitted to the court below on the theory that the pleadings did not contain a conclusive admission that the contestee, "Treanor, received 4,862 legal votes, it is too late in this court to present a differ
*320
ent construction of the pleadings, and claim here, for the first time, that the contestant is bound by the admission.
(King
v.
Davis,
34 Cal. 106 ;
Lee
v.
Figg,
37 Cal. 336 ;
1
Hutchins
v.
Castle,
48 Cal. 156 ;
Hughes
v.
Wheeler,
76 Cal. 230 ;
Sukeforth
v.
Lord,
87 Cal. 403 ;
Willey
v.
Crocker etc. Bank,
141 Cal. 518 .) I do not agree with the construction put upon the pleadings in this respect in the principal opinion. I concur in all other points.
1
99 Am. Dec. 271 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3307875. Public record. Not legal advice.