McGuire v. Quintana
JAMES McGUIRE v. E. QUINTANA and THE CALIFORNIA BRIDGE AND BUILDING COMPANY
- Area
- civil
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
The offered evidence should have been received. It tended to show that nothing was due to the contractor, the Bridge Company. (Pomroy’s Rem. Rights, sec. 700; Frisch v. Caler, 21 Cal. 71; Fairchild v. Amshaugh, 22 Cal. 575.)
*428Harrison & McMu/rtry, for the Respondent.
A breach of contract and damages under it must be specially pleaded. (Blethen v. Blalce, 44 Cal. 117; Piercy v. ¿Sabin, 10 Cal. 22; Philips on Mechanics’ Liens, sec. 424.)
By the Court :
The answer of the defendant was a general denial—nothing more. It was not competent for him to prove, under an answer of that character, “ that the buildings- were not finished by the contractor according to the contract,” etc. (Blethen v. Blake, 44 Cal. 117.)
Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.
Cites, in this corpus
- Blethen v. Blake No. 3,036 · 1872-07-01
- Bayles v. Baxter · 1863-07-01
- Frisch v. Caler · 1862-07-01
- Piercy v. Sabin · 1858-07-01
Cited by
- Michalitschke Bros. & Co. v. Wells S. F. No. 736 · 1897-11-02