Opinion

Brown v. Weldon

  • 71 Cal. 393
  • 12 P. 280
  • 1886 Cal. LEXIS 597
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 9, 1886
Status
Published
Author
McKinstry
On the bench
McKinstry
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 65.3%

The opinion

McKinstry, J.

The complaint is inartificially and loosely drawn. But we do not think it fails to state a cause of action. Nor is it subject to demurrer as ambiguous or uncertain. But it so far departs from established precedents, and so nearly approaches the line which separates pleading which may be tolerated though not approved from pleading radically defective, that we refuse to treat this appeal as frivolous.

Defendant’s motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. The genuineness and due execution of the promissory note were admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 447.) Prima facie it was made when and where it bore date.

The findings are sufficient.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Myrick, J., and Thornton, J, concurred.

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.