Hackett v. Bank of California
F. M. HACKETT, Administrator, etc. v. THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA
- 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 Court :
The Court below erred in allowing the plaintiff to file the second amended complaint, which changed the proceeding from an action ex delicto to an action ex contractu. (Ramirez v. Murray, 5 Cal. 222.) Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except in certain particulars which do not affect the question, is like § 68 of the former Practice Act, as the same was amended in 1853, and as the same stood when Ramirez v. Murray was decided.
The amendment was not permissible under § 470 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because here the allegations “ to which the proof was directed ” weré unproved, “ not in some particular or particulars only, but in their general scope and meaning.”
The nonsuit should have been granted.
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded, for further proceedings.
Cites, in this corpus
- Ramirez v. Murray · 1855-07-01
Cited by
- Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance S. F. No. 20690 · 1961-09-11
- Vick v. Grasser Civ. 9507 · 1959-04-17
- Stubbs v. Abercrombie Civ. No. 2128. · 1919-07-10
- Altpeter v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. Civ. No. 1258. · 1915-03-09
- Frost v. Witter L.A. No. 781. · 1901-04-06
- Wheeler v. West No. 12215 · 1888-12-31