gno.law

House v. Meyer

California Supreme Court · No. 19283 · 1893-12-29 · Published · 100 Cal. 592 · 35 P. 308 · 1893 Cal. LEXIS 838

THOMAS HOUSE et ux. v. MARIUS MEYER

Area
civil
Panel
Thomas E. Haven (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 — Haven

De Haven, J.

The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled. In an action like this, to recover damages resulting from the alleged negligence of a defendant, a general allegation of negligence upon the part of the defendant is sufficient. “The negligence is the ultimate fact to be pleaded, and is not a legal conclusion.” (Bliss on Code Pleading, sec. 211.)

Nor was it incumbent on the plaintiffs to allege that they were not guilty of contributory negligence. (Robinson v. Western Pac. R. R. Co., 48 Cal. 409.)

The appeal in this case is without merit.

Judgment and order affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by