Schuster v. Williams

California Supreme Court

Schuster v. Williams

262 P. 305, 202 Cal. 647, 1927 Cal. LEXIS 398

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1927

DocketDocket No. L.A. 8890.

StatusPublished

This text of 262 P. 305 (Schuster v. Williams) 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

Schuster v. Williams, 262 P. 305, 202 Cal. 647, 1927 Cal. LEXIS 398 (Cal. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

CURTIS, J.

There is no merit in this appeal. Appellant claims that the court erred in denying her motion for judgment on the pleadings. This motion was' based upon the ground that the answer admitted the indebtedness set forth in the complaint, and to recover which the action was instituted by plaintiff. The answer denies in apt language the allegations of the complaint. It is contended, *648 however, by appellant that respondent in a counterclaim admitted that she was indebted to appellant in the sum demanded by the appellant. On account of what is undoubtedly a typographical error in said counterclaim it may be susceptible of such a construction. This, however, cannot avail the appellant. As defendant had in her answer denied that she was indebted to plaintiff in any sum whatever, any admission she may have made in her counterclaim did not impair these denials of her answer. The motion for judgment on the pleadings was therefore properly denied (Cass v. Rochester, 174 Cal. 358 [163 Pac. 212]; Botto v. Vandament, 67 Cal. 332 [7 Pac. 753]).

Preston, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.

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

CURTIS, J.

There is no merit in this appeal. Appellant claims that the court erred in denying her motion for judgment on the pleadings. This motion was' based upon the ground that the answer admitted the indebtedness set forth in the complaint, and to recover which the action was instituted by plaintiff. The answer denies in apt language the allegations of the complaint. It is contended, *648 however, by appellant that respondent in a counterclaim admitted that she was indebted to appellant in the sum demanded by the appellant. On account of what is undoubtedly a typographical error in said counterclaim it may be susceptible of such a construction. This, however, cannot avail the appellant. As defendant had in her answer denied that she was indebted to plaintiff in any sum whatever, any admission she may have made in her counterclaim did not impair these denials of her answer. The motion for judgment on the pleadings was therefore properly denied (Cass v. Rochester, 174 Cal. 358 [163 Pac. 212]; Botto v. Vandament, 67 Cal. 332 [7 Pac. 753]).

Preston, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 P. 305, 202 Cal. 647, 1927 Cal. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuster-v-williams-cal-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack