Baird

Baird v. Olsheski

Good Law
102 Cal. App. 452·1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 190·283 P. 321
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 10, 1929Docket No. 6418.California1,676 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

A demurrer by respondent to the second amended complaint filed in the above action was sustained with leave to amend. The plaintiff having failed to amend, a judgment, from which he has appealed, was entered against him.

The suit was for the conversion of certain corporate stock. The complaint set up three causes of action, to each of which a demurrer, both general and special, was interposed. The first cause of action alleged that plaintiff, on November 25, 1925, was the owner and lawfully possessed of stock and “that on or about said last mentioned date the defendants unlawfully took and carried away said stock and have converted and disposed of the same to their own use to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $1,000. . . . ” As the special ground of demurrer to this cause of action it was alleged that it could not be ascertained therefrom “in what respects defendant unlawfully took or carried away the said stock or converted and disposed of the same. ’ ’ As stated by respondent, the words “wrongfully” and “unlawfully,” when used in connection with issuable facts, are surplusage (21 Cal. Jur. (Pleading), sec. 16, p. 32), and it is not sufficient in an action for conversion to…

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.