Gridley

Gridley v. Selleck

Bad Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 409·92 Cal. App. 97·267 P. 708
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 1928Docket No. 5041.California538 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Valentine, J.

A demurrer to the complaint in this action was sustained, and the plaintiff given ten days to amend her complaint, which she failed to do. After the entry of her default a motion to dismiss the action was made and granted, and judgment of dismissal subsequently entered. From that judgment plaintiff takes this appeal. The demurrer was general and special. The minute order simply recites: “This cause came on regularly to be heard on demurrer. Demurrer sustained. Ten days to amend.” The demurrer, among other matters, specifies: “That said complaint is uncertain in this: That it cannot be determined therefrom, nor from any part thereof, whether or not the said defendant is being sued upon the principal obligation of the Selleck Auto Co. or upon the alleged written guarantee referred to in said complaint,” and that the complaint is ambiguous and unintelligible in the same respects.

An examination of the complaint, and particularly paragraphs II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, and XI, certainly sustains this contention. Paragraph III is as follows:

Paragraphs VIT and VIII of the complaint allege the assignment to the plaintiff by the “Seamless Eubber Co., Inc.,” of its “claim and account”…

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.