Bonestell

Bonestell v. Bowie

Good Law
128 Cal. 511·1900 Cal. LEXIS 631·61 P. 78
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 4, 1900S.F. No. 1427.California1,704 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gray, J.

Appeal from a judgment and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.

This is an action on a promissory note and to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of the same. The original complaint was filed February 24, 1896. The note sued on was dated February 11, 1892, and was due sixty days after date.

1. The first point urged on appeal is directed to the action of the court in overruling the demurrer to the third amended complaint. Three amended complaints were filed in the ease, and the first allegation of each of them, as well as of the original complaint, was as follows: “That on the eleventh day of February, 1892, the defendant, W. A. Bowie, executed to plaintiff a promissory note in the words and figures following, to wit.” And then follows a copy of the note upon which the action is based, the same being identical in the original and all of the amended complaints. Beyond any question the third amended complaint, filed October 7, 1896, upon which the action was tried, stated the same cause of action as the original and other amended complaints. It is equally beyond question that the basis of the action, as set forth in the third amended complaint, was…

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.