Stockton Lumber Co. v. Blodgett
STOCKTON LUMBER COMPANY, Respondent, v. H. A. BLODGETT, Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Kern County
- Trial judge
- Paul W. Bennett
- Outcome
- affirmed — The judgment is affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Smith (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Smith
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.
Cites, in this corpus
- Hearst v. Hart S.F. No. 1283. · 1900-04-05
Cited by
- Endler v. Schutzbank L. A. 29458 · 1968-01-26