Opinion

Himmelmann v. Haskell

  • 46 Cal. 66
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 1, 1873
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 25.9%

The opinion

By the Court:

The allegation in the complaint, to which objection is taken under the general demurrer, is as follows: ‘‘That afterwards, to wit: on the 12th day of July, 1865, due notice of said award to said John Henry, and of the particulars thereof, was published, and thereafter continued in the aforesaid newspaper for five successive days thereafter (Sundays excepted).” Upon the authority of Dyer v. North, 44 Cal. 157 , we hold this allegation to be sufficient. The question as to the evidence which will be required to sustain the allegation—whether it must be shown that the Board ordered the award to be published—is not involved in this point.

Judgment reversed and order remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the complaint.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.