Richmond Terminal Corp. v. Parr Terminal Co.

Defendants’ demurrers to plaintiff’s second amended complaint were sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff failed to amend after notice and judgment was entered in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appeals upon the judgment-roll.

The complaint in question is entitled “Action for Damages” and covers twenty pages of the transcript. It appears to be drawn upon the theory that a conspiracy existed between the defendants, for it is alleged in various places that defendants conspired to do certain acts. Such allegations are insufficient unless it appears that some right of plaintiff has been violated by some alleged wrongful act or acts of defendants for .“conspiracy cannot be made the subject of a civil action unless something is done which without the conspiracy would give a right of action”. (Bowman v. Wohlke, 166 Cal. 125 [Ann. Cas. 1916B, 1011, 35 Pac. 37, 39]; Moropoulos v. C. H. & O. B. Fuller Co., 186 Cal. 679 [ 200 Pac. 601 ]; Menner v. Slater, 148 Cal. 285 [ 83 Pac. 35, 39 ]; Dowdell v. Carpy, 129 Cal. 168 [ 61 Pac. 948 ].) In our opinion plaintiff’s complaint failed to show that any act of the defendants violated any of its rights.

We have endeavored to ascertain appellant’s…