Ellerhorst

Ellerhorst v. Blankman

Good Law
102 Cal. App. 133·282 P. 507
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 21, 1929Docket Nos. 7009, 7123.California763 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

Plaintiffs sued for damages on a complaint charging mismanagement of the affairs of a corporation in which they were stockholders. But two of the defendants— Curry and McKannay—were served with process. Their demurrer to the complaint was sustained. An amended complaint was filed. Their demurrer to this complaint was also sustained. A second amended complaint was then filed. Their demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and judgment was entered for these defendants. Thereafter plaintiffs moved under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to further amend. Their motion was denied. Two appeals were taken- and are presented here on the same record—one from the judgment and one from the order denying leave to amend.

The opening brief of appellants consists of a reprint of their second amended complaint, the demurrer of the two defendants, and affidavit of counsel used on the motion for leave to amend and some of the oral testimony taken on that hearing. The appellants do not, either by argument or citation of authority, make any effort to support their pleading. All they say is that it is sufficient against the demurrer “and if not it could be amended.” The…

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.