Walton

Filice & Perrelli Canning Co. v. Walton

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 499·95 Cal. App. 7·271 P. 1096
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 17, 1928Docket No. 5701.California1,142 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants, the defendants appeared and answered, a trial was had before the court sitting without a jury, the trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiff, and from a judgment entered thereon the defendants have appealed.

The plaintiff’s complaint was framed in two counts. In the first count it pleaded a breach of contract, alleging that the defendants had failed to deliver personal property theretofore sold to the plaintiff. In the second count it alleged that the defendants had converted the property. The defendants filed a demurrer “to plaintiff’s complaint. ...” The demurrer was overruled. It is now claimed that the order overruling the demurrer was erroneous. In this behalf the defendants assert that the second cause of action did not set forth facts sufficient and that the demurrer should have been sustained. It is sufficient to call attention to the fact that the defendants did not demur to the second count, but they demurred to the whole complaint. However, if we examine the second count, it is clear that it did state facts sufficient and if a demurrer had been directed against it that the demurrer should have been…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.