Greenfield v. Steamer Gunnell
6 Cal. 67
Opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
The objection to the want of verification to the declaration should have been made either before answer or with the answer. It comes too late after answer.
See Tooms v. Randall 3 Cal. R., 438.
The other objections should have been taken by demurrer. The declaration, although defective, alleges enough to free it from the charge of not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Greenfield v. Steamer Gunnell, 6 Cal. 67 (Cal. 1856).
6 Cal. 67 (Greenfield v. Steamer Gunnell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Andrich v. Adel
D. Arizona, 2021
Musso v. Triplett
372 P.2d 687 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1962)
Hill v. Nerle
156 P. 981 (California Court of Appeal, 1916)
Moore v. Hupp
105 P. 209 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1909)
Pence v. Durbin
1 Idaho 550 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1874)