gno.law

Pacific Electrical & Mechanical Co. v. Hardiman

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 14553 · 1951-01-15 · Published · 101 Cal. App. 2d 699 · 226 P.2d 65 · 1951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073

PACIFIC ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL COMPANY, INC. (a Corporation) v. J. L. HARDIMAN

Area
civil
Panel
Maurice T. Dooling, Jr. (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 — Dooling

DOOLING, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order dissolving an attachment levied on property of the individual defendant, J. L. Hardiman. The sole ground of the motion was that the debt sued upon was contracted by the corporate defendant and that the moving defendant never at any time individually contracted any indebtedness to plaintiff, all of which was sworn to in the affidavit of the movant in support of his motion.

Respondent’s attorney filed no brief and did not appear at the oral argument. This may be because he was satisfied, as we are, that the order must be reversed. The question of a defendant’s liability sufficiently pleaded cannot be inquired into on a motion to discharge an attachment but must be determined in the trial of the action on its merits. (Repub*700lic Truck Sales Corp. v. Peak, 194 Cal. 492, 503-504 [229 P. 331]; Lori, Ltd., Inc. v. Wolfe, 80 Cal.App.2d 557, 561 [180 P.2d 21]; Asamen v. Thompson, 55 Cal.App.2d 657, 661 [131 P.2d 839]; Corum v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App. 741, 746 [300 P. 837].)

Order reversed.

Nourse, P. J., and Schottky, J. pro tern., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by