Kirsch v. Derby
FRANZ KIRSCH v. J. S. DERBY, etc.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- McFABLAND (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 — McFabland
McFabland, J.— Defendant made default in the court below, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff. Defendant appeals upon the judgment roll; and the point insisted on for a reversal is, that the complaint is defective, because plaintiff, by said complaint, has not properly pleaded either the probate of the will of Julia Kirsch, deceased, or the appointment of defendant as executor.
We are satisfied that the probate of the will and the executorship of appellant are sufficiently pleaded. (Weller v. Dickinson, 93 Cal. 108; Wise v. Williams, 72 Cal. *605547; Munro v. Dredging Co., 84 Cal. 515; 18 Am. St. Rep. 248.) But the complaint states sufficient facts for a personal judgment against appellant. If there were any valid objections to the complaint on the ground of ambiguity or uncertainty, such objections could have been taken only by special demurrer. (Demartin v. Albert, 68 Cal. 277; Blanc v. Klumpke, 29 Cal. 156; Blasingame v. Home Ins. Co., 75 Cal. 633; Heeser v. Miller, 77 Cal. 192.)
The judgment is affirmed.
De Haven, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Weller v. Dickinson No. 13697 · 1892-01-27
- Munro v. Pacific Coast Dredging & Reclamation Co. No. 12481 · 1890-06-12
- Heeser v. Miller No. 11562 · 1888-10-19
- Blasingame v. Home Ins. Co. of City of N.Y. No. 9915 · 1888-04-27
- Wise v. Williams No. 9829 · 1887-06-16
- Demartin v. Albert No. 8546 · 1885-12-28
- Blanc v. Klumpke · 1865-07-01
Cited by
- Murdough v. Murdough Civ. No, 1292. · 1913-11-06