gno.law

Liening v. Gould

California Supreme Court · · 1859-07-01 · Published · 13 Cal. 598 · 1859 Cal. LEXIS 211

LIENING, Public Administrator v. GOULD

Area
civil
Panel
Joseph G. Baldwin (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 — Baldwin

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court— Terry, C. J. concurring.

The points of Appellant are not well taken. Pleadings in Justices’ Courts are not held to much strictness. The complaint is substantially good. The plaintiff alleges that he is administrator in fact of the intestate. This is not denied in the answer. The failure to make the proof of the plaintiff’s title to sue, therefore, was no ground for a nonsuit.

There was no consideration for the alleged agreement of extension ; paying a part of a note was not enough when all was due.

The only matter in controversy really was as to the credit of thirty-five dollars claimed by defendant, as to which the proof was somewhat conflicting.

We do not see that any statement appears so authenticated as to enable us to review the testimony; for there was no motion for a new trial; but we ghotild not, under the circumstances, be disposed to interfere if a motion had been made for a new trial, and a proper statement settled.

Judgment affirmed.

Cited by