Ah Goon v. Tarpey

California Supreme Court

Ah Goon v. Tarpey

7 P. 188, 2 Cal. Unrep. 483

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 3, 1885

DocketNo. 8633

StatusPublished

This text of 7 P. 188 (Ah Goon v. Tarpey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ah Goon v. Tarpey, 7 P. 188, 2 Cal. Unrep. 483 (Cal. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

By the COURT.

1. The difference in the names Ah Yak and Ah Jack; also as to whether the men were employed to be paid one dollar, or a dollar and a quarter, or a dollar and a half; and the statement in the assignment that the contract was with the Melrose Smelting & Refining Works—if variances, were immaterial, and misled no one: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 469.

2. The court did not err in striking out that portion of the answer relating to garnishment; it contained no defense to the action stated in the complaint.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the COURT.

1. The difference in the names Ah Yak and Ah Jack; also as to whether the men were employed to be paid one dollar, or a dollar and a quarter, or a dollar and a half; and the statement in the assignment that the contract was with the Melrose Smelting & Refining Works—if variances, were immaterial, and misled no one: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 469.

2. The court did not err in striking out that portion of the answer relating to garnishment; it contained no defense to the action stated in the complaint.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 P. 188, 2 Cal. Unrep. 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ah-goon-v-tarpey-cal-1885.