Babcock v. Briggs
This text of 52 Cal. 502 (Babcock v. Briggs) 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.
Opinion
Injured party may waive tort, and sue in assumpsit. (Fratt v. Clark, 12 Cal. 90; Roberts v. Fvans, 43 Cal. 382; Tuite v. Wakelee, 19 Cal. 692; Caussidiere v. Beers, 2 Keyes, 198; Civil Code, sec. 1621.)
Cope & Boyd, for Respondents.
The action is not upon a contract within the meaning of the statute. (Code of Civil Procedure, secs. 537, 538.) The gravamen of the action is a tort—a wrongful conversion of the property and money of the plaintiffs. There is no allegation of any promise or undertaking on the part of the defendants, and the idea of a contract is expressly negatived by the averments of the complaint.
The facts stated in the complaint do not make a case which would support a writ of attachment under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 Cal. 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babcock-v-briggs-cal-1877.