Wiles

Wiles v. Hammer

Good Law
1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 497·66 Cal. App. 538·226 P. 651
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 15, 1924Civ. No. 4004.California901 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Curtis, J.

This action is for the recovery of a money judgment against the defendant. The complaint contains three causes of action. The first, upon a contract for the drilling of a well; the second, for the value of certain well-casing, and the third, for services performed in the development work on wells belonging to the defendant. The answer consists of a denial of the allegations of the complaint and affirmative matter in the nature of an affirmative defense to each of the three causes of action set out in the complaint. Defendant also filed a cross-complaint, but no point seems to be made by appellant regarding any issue involved in the latter pleading. The court found in favor of plaintiff upon all three causes of action set forth in said complaint and awarded judgment in his favor for the amount prayed for, less the amount of a counterclaim set up by defendant in his answer. The counterclaim was no part of, and was entirely independent of, the matters set forth in the affirmative defenses of the answer.

In the findings of fact filed, the court, after finding in favor of plaintiff upon the allegations of the complaint, found also upon the issues made by defendant’s affirmative…

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.