Brown v. Weldon
HOWARD W. BROWN v. W. H. WELDON
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- E. W. McKinstry (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 — McKinstry
McKinstry, J.
The complaint is inartificially and loosely drawn. But we do not think it fails to state a cause of action. Nor is it subject to demurrer as ambiguous or uncertain. But it so far departs from established precedents, and so nearly approaches the line which separates pleading which may be tolerated though not approved from pleading radically defective, that we refuse to treat this appeal as frivolous.
Defendant’s motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. The genuineness and due execution of the promissory note were admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 447.) Prima facie it was made when and where it bore date.
The findings are sufficient.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Myrick, J., and Thornton, J, concurred.
Cited by
- Barnaby v. Barnaby Docket No. 5363. · 1929-08-01
- Ryan v. Jacques No. 19250 · 1894-06-27