Jenicek v. Barman

California Court of Appeal

Jenicek v. Barman

129 Cal. App. 496

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 7, 1933

DocketCiv. No. 8081

StatusPublished

This text of 129 Cal. App. 496 (Jenicek v. Barman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jenicek v. Barman, 129 Cal. App. 496 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

On motion to dismiss or affirm, under Rule V, section 3. It seems clear that there is no merit in the points mentioned in the brief for appellants. The bond contains a direct condition that the defendants will pay the obligations of respondent up to the sum of $3,000 specified in the bond. Jenicek had a judgment against the obligees, which was a lien on their property. The complaint did not directly allege nonpayment of the said judgment, but it did allege that said judgment constituted a lien on the described real property. From this we conclude that there is not a total failure to allege nonpayment. It is now too [497]*497late for appellants on this appeal to urge for the first time that by reason of such a defect, the complaint does not state a cause of action. It is the opinion of the court that the motion should be granted. It is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

(Bench decision, Jan. 23, 1933.)

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

THE COURT.

On motion to dismiss or affirm, under Rule V, section 3. It seems clear that there is no merit in the points mentioned in the brief for appellants. The bond contains a direct condition that the defendants will pay the obligations of respondent up to the sum of $3,000 specified in the bond. Jenicek had a judgment against the obligees, which was a lien on their property. The complaint did not directly allege nonpayment of the said judgment, but it did allege that said judgment constituted a lien on the described real property. From this we conclude that there is not a total failure to allege nonpayment. It is now too [497]*497late for appellants on this appeal to urge for the first time that by reason of such a defect, the complaint does not state a cause of action. It is the opinion of the court that the motion should be granted. It is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

(Bench decision, Jan. 23, 1933.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 Cal. App. 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenicek-v-barman-calctapp-1933.