Hunter v. Hubert

California Supreme Court

Hunter v. Hubert

39 P. 534, 4 Cal. Unrep. 978, 1895 Cal. LEXIS 1134

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 8, 1895

DocketNo. 15,270

StatusPublished

This text of 39 P. 534 (Hunter v. Hubert) 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

Hunter v. Hubert, 39 P. 534, 4 Cal. Unrep. 978, 1895 Cal. LEXIS 1134 (Cal. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

HENSHAW, J.

This is an action by plaintiff to recover from' defendants the amount due him for damages to his property by the widening of Dupont street. Judgment passed for plaintiff, and from it the defendants Hubert and Humphreys prosecute this appeal. The only proposition advanced by them is that the amended complaint does not state a cause of action. This point was made by other defendants in an appeal from this judgment, and decided adversely to the contention in Hunter v. Bryant, 98 Cal. 250, 33 Pac. 51, where this court said: “Conceding, for the pur[979]*979poses of the case, that the original complaint was lacking in essentials, still the amended complaint is unobjectionable, and that is the pleading upon which the judgment was rendered.” A review of the ease presents no grounds for a modification or reversal of this decision. The judgment is affirmed, and this order directed to be entered as of date May 1, 1893.

We concur: McFarland, J.; Temple, J.

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

HENSHAW, J.

This is an action by plaintiff to recover from' defendants the amount due him for damages to his property by the widening of Dupont street. Judgment passed for plaintiff, and from it the defendants Hubert and Humphreys prosecute this appeal. The only proposition advanced by them is that the amended complaint does not state a cause of action. This point was made by other defendants in an appeal from this judgment, and decided adversely to the contention in Hunter v. Bryant, 98 Cal. 250, 33 Pac. 51, where this court said: “Conceding, for the pur[979]*979poses of the case, that the original complaint was lacking in essentials, still the amended complaint is unobjectionable, and that is the pleading upon which the judgment was rendered.” A review of the ease presents no grounds for a modification or reversal of this decision. The judgment is affirmed, and this order directed to be entered as of date May 1, 1893.

We concur: McFarland, J.; Temple, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 P. 534, 4 Cal. Unrep. 978, 1895 Cal. LEXIS 1134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-hubert-cal-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack