Gassen v. Bower

14 P. 206, 72 Cal. 555, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 573
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJune 21, 1887
DocketNo. 11817
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 14 P. 206 (Gassen v. Bower) 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
Gassen v. Bower, 14 P. 206, 72 Cal. 555, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 573 (Cal. 1887).

Opinion

Hayne, C.

— Action to quiet title. The defendant put in a cross-complaint praying for the correction of the certificate of acknowledgment of a deed of a married woman, which deed constituted one link in the chain of title. The court found that the property was the separate property of the married woman, and that the acknowledgment had in fact been made, but that by a blunder of the officer the certificate was defective, and decreed that it be corrected. It is not contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding, or that upon the facts found the judgment was improper. The single point made is that the cross-complaint did not aver that the property was the separate property of the married woman, and that therefore there was no cloud, and consequently that the court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s demurrer for ambiguity.

While we think the pleading was obnoxious to criticism, it does not seem to us that it is so radically defective as to fail to support the judgment; and the provision of the code is, that “ the court must, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or [556]*556proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties, and no judgment shall be reversed or affected by reason of such error or defect.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 475.)

Where a pleading is demurred to for ambiguity, we think that if the party was not misled to his prejudice, the ambiguity cannot be said to “ affect the substantial rights of the parties.” And we do not think that in this case the appellant was misled.

■ We therefore advise that the judgment be affirmed.

Foote, C., and Belcher, C. 0., concurred.

The Court.

— For the reasons given in the foregoing, opinion, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Proper v. Sutter Drainage District
200 P. 664 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Preston v. Central California Water & Irrigation Co.
104 P. 462 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
Huffner v. Sawday
94 P. 424 (California Supreme Court, 1908)
Yordi v. Yordi
91 P. 348 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
Butler v. Delafield
82 P. 260 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Schwind v. Hall
61 P. 573 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Hawley Bros. Hardware Co. v. Brownstone
56 P. 468 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Alexander v. Central Lumber & Mill Co.
38 P. 410 (California Supreme Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 P. 206, 72 Cal. 555, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gassen-v-bower-cal-1887.