Allen v. Holt

7 P. 421, 2 Cal. Unrep. 485
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJune 23, 1885
DocketNo. 8997
StatusPublished

This text of 7 P. 421 (Allen v. Holt) 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
Allen v. Holt, 7 P. 421, 2 Cal. Unrep. 485 (Cal. 1885).

Opinion

THORNTON, J.

Appeal from an order granting a new trial. The complaint in this case states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The point as to the averment of ownership is settled by the case of Salmon v. Symonds, 24 Cal. 264. See, also, Kidder v. Stevens, 60 Cal. 414; Van Rensselaer v. Bonesteel, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 370; Teetshorn v. Hull, 30 Wis. 167. The court therefore erred in granting a new trial on the ground that the complaint was defective is not stating a cause of action. We see no ground on which the order can be sustained. The order'is reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to the court below to deny the motion for a new trial.

So ordered.

We concur: Sharpstein, J.; Myrick, J.

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

Related

Kidder v. Stevens
60 Cal. 414 (California Supreme Court, 1882)
Teetshorn v. Hull
30 Wis. 162 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 P. 421, 2 Cal. Unrep. 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-holt-cal-1885.