Brown v. Weldon

California Supreme Court

Brown v. Weldon

12 P. 280, 71 Cal. 393, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 597

California Supreme Court·Decided December 9, 1886·No. No. 9606·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

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.

Brown v. Weldon, 12 P. 280, 71 Cal. 393, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 597 (Cal. 1886).

Pincite

12 P. 280 (Brown v. Weldon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related