Orndorff v. Scharlin

California Court of Appeal

Orndorff v. Scharlin

289 P. 904, 106 Cal. App. 701, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 670

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 27, 1930

DocketDocket No. 4787.

StatusPublished

This text of 289 P. 904 (Orndorff v. Scharlin) 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

Orndorff v. Scharlin, 289 P. 904, 106 Cal. App. 701, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 670 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Plaintiff sued for breach of promise to marry. Defendant filed a demurrer which was both general *702 and special. The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and judgment was then entered for defendant. Within due time plaintiff moved to set aside the judgment and sought leave to amend her complaint, but these applications were denied.

The appeal is taken from the judgment. The transcript was filed in September, 1923, and appellant’s brief was filed in October of the same year. No brief has been filed by respondent, and though notice was given to appear on June 9, 1930, and show cause why the judgment should not be reversed, no appearance has been made.

The complaint states a complete cause of action in breach of contract and, though some of the grounds of the special demurrer seem to be well taken, it was error to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. (Payne v. Baehr, 153 Cal. 441, 447 [95 Pac. 895]; Schaake v. Eagle etc. Can Co., 135 Cal. 472, 480 [63 Pac. 1025, 67 Pac. 759]; Blodgett v. Rowlet, 86 Cal. App. 32, 36 [260 Pac. 324].)

The judgment is reversed.

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