Pacific Electrical & Mechanical Co. v. Hardiman

California Court of Appeal

Pacific Electrical & Mechanical Co. v. Hardiman

226 P.2d 65, 101 Cal. App. 2d 699, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 15, 1951

DocketCiv. No. 14553

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 P.2d 65 (Pacific Electrical & Mechanical Co. v. Hardiman) 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

Pacific Electrical & Mechanical Co. v. Hardiman, 226 P.2d 65, 101 Cal. App. 2d 699, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

DOOLING, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order dissolving an attachment levied on property of the individual defendant, J. L. Hardiman. The sole ground of the motion was that the debt sued upon was contracted by the corporate defendant and that the moving defendant never at any time individually contracted any indebtedness to plaintiff, all of which was sworn to in the affidavit of the movant in support of his motion.

Respondent’s attorney filed no brief and did not appear at the oral argument. This may be because he was satisfied, as we are, that the order must be reversed. The question of a defendant’s liability sufficiently pleaded cannot be inquired into on a motion to discharge an attachment but must be determined in the trial of the action on its merits. (Repub[700]*700lic Truck Sales Corp. v. Peak, 194 Cal. 492, 503-504 [229 P. 331]; Lori, Ltd., Inc. v. Wolfe, 80 Cal.App.2d 557, 561 [180 P.2d 21]; Asamen v. Thompson, 55 Cal.App.2d 657, 661 [131 P.2d 839]; Corum v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App. 741, 746 [300 P. 837].)

Order reversed.

Nourse, P. J., and Schottky, J. pro tern., concurred.

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

DOOLING, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order dissolving an attachment levied on property of the individual defendant, J. L. Hardiman. The sole ground of the motion was that the debt sued upon was contracted by the corporate defendant and that the moving defendant never at any time individually contracted any indebtedness to plaintiff, all of which was sworn to in the affidavit of the movant in support of his motion.

Respondent’s attorney filed no brief and did not appear at the oral argument. This may be because he was satisfied, as we are, that the order must be reversed. The question of a defendant’s liability sufficiently pleaded cannot be inquired into on a motion to discharge an attachment but must be determined in the trial of the action on its merits. (Repub[700]*700lic Truck Sales Corp. v. Peak, 194 Cal. 492, 503-504 [229 P. 331]; Lori, Ltd., Inc. v. Wolfe, 80 Cal.App.2d 557, 561 [180 P.2d 21]; Asamen v. Thompson, 55 Cal.App.2d 657, 661 [131 P.2d 839]; Corum v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App. 741, 746 [300 P. 837].)

Order reversed.

Nourse, P. J., and Schottky, J. pro tern., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 P.2d 65, 101 Cal. App. 2d 699, 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-electrical-mechanical-co-v-hardiman-calctapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack