Stockton Lumber Co. v. Blodgett

California Court of Appeal

Stockton Lumber Co. v. Blodgett

84 P. 441, 3 Cal. App. 94, 1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 206

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 14, 1906

DocketCiv. No. 223.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 84 P. 441 (Stockton Lumber Co. v. Blodgett) 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

Stockton Lumber Co. v. Blodgett, 84 P. 441, 3 Cal. App. 94, 1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, J.

This is a suit on a promissory note made by the defendant to the plaintiff. The note is set out at length in the complaint, and the complaint is verified by Fyfe, who, it is said in the affidavit, “is manager of the corporation plaintiff,” etc. The defendant filed an unverified answer, denying generally each and every allegation of the complaint, and upon *95 motion of the plaintiff judgment was entered against him on the pleadings for the amount of the note and interest, from which judgment the defendant appeals. There is no bill of exceptions.

The grounds urged by appellant for reversal are: That the complaint was not verified “by an officer” of the corporation, and 'that the proper remedy for the plaintiff in the premises was to strike out the insufficient answer. But we have no doubt that the manager of a corporation is an officer thereof. Nor, with regard to the other point, do we see any reason for the practice recommended by appellant’s counsel. (Hearst v. Hart, 128 Cal. 327, [60 Pac. 86].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Gray, P. J., and Allen, J., concurred.

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

SMITH, J.

This is a suit on a promissory note made by the defendant to the plaintiff. The note is set out at length in the complaint, and the complaint is verified by Fyfe, who, it is said in the affidavit, “is manager of the corporation plaintiff,” etc. The defendant filed an unverified answer, denying generally each and every allegation of the complaint, and upon *95 motion of the plaintiff judgment was entered against him on the pleadings for the amount of the note and interest, from which judgment the defendant appeals. There is no bill of exceptions.

The grounds urged by appellant for reversal are: That the complaint was not verified “by an officer” of the corporation, and 'that the proper remedy for the plaintiff in the premises was to strike out the insufficient answer. But we have no doubt that the manager of a corporation is an officer thereof. Nor, with regard to the other point, do we see any reason for the practice recommended by appellant’s counsel. (Hearst v. Hart, 128 Cal. 327, [60 Pac. 86].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Gray, P. J., and Allen, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 P. 441, 3 Cal. App. 94, 1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stockton-lumber-co-v-blodgett-calctapp-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack