Conklin v. Ling

13 P.2d 749, 125 Cal. App. 44, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 567
California Court of Appeal·Decided July 22, 1932·No. Docket No. 7455.·Published

Opinions

*45 CONREY, P. J.

The facts are stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Houser. We are all in agreement that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. We of the majority, however, think that the alleged publication of which plaintiff complained was neither libelous on its face nor capable of being given a libelous quality by means of any amendment to the complaint. We therefore are of the opinion that the court very properly dismissed the action without first giving plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint.

There being no argument presented in support of the appeal from order denying motion to strike cost bill, that appeal is deemed to be without merit.

The judgment is affirmed. The order is affirmed.

York, J., concurred.

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

Conklin v. Ling, 13 P.2d 749, 125 Cal. App. 44, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

13 P.2d 749 (Conklin v. Ling) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Metzger v. Vestal
244 P. 942 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
Pollock v. Evening Herald Publishing Co.
154 P. 30 (California Court of Appeal, 1915)
Mahana v. Echo Publishing Co.
183 P. 800 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
Mellen v. Times-Mirror Co.
140 P. 277 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
Schaake v. Eagle Automatic Can Co.
63 P. 1025 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Bates v. Campbell
2 P.2d 383 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
Chavez v. Times-Mirror Co.
195 P. 666 (California Supreme Court, 1921)
Maynard v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
34 Cal. 48 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Maynard v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
47 Cal. 207 (California Supreme Court, 1873)
Ingraham v. Lyon
38 P. 892 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Grand v. Dreyfus
54 P. 389 (California Supreme Court, 1898)