Hackett v. Bank of California

57 Cal. 335
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1881·No. No. 6,652·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

The Court :

The Court below erred in allowing the plaintiff to file the second amended complaint, which changed the proceeding from an action ex delicto to an action ex contractu. (Ramirez v. Murray, 5 Cal. 222.) Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except in certain particulars which do not affect the question, is like § 68 of the former Practice Act, as the same was amended in 1853, and as the same stood when Ramirez v. Murray was decided.

The amendment was not permissible under § 470 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because here the allegations “ to which the proof was directed ” weré unproved, “ not in some particular or particulars only, but in their general scope and meaning.”

The nonsuit should have been granted.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded, for further proceedings.

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

Hackett v. Bank of California, 57 Cal. 335 (Cal. 1881).

57 Cal. 335 (Hackett v. Bank of California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance
364 P.2d 681 (California Supreme Court, 1961)
Vick v. Grasser
338 P.2d 223 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
Stubbs v. Abercrombie
183 P. 458 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Vere v. Rosafa
11 P.R. Fed. 325 (D. Puerto Rico, 1919)
Altpeter v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.
148 P. 241 (California Court of Appeal, 1915)
Z. J. Fort Produce Co. v. Southwestern Grain & Produce Co.
1910 OK 99 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Frost v. Witter
64 P. 705 (California Supreme Court, 1901)
Wheeler v. West
20 P. 45 (California Supreme Court, 1888)