Rosenthal

Rosenthal v. McMann

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 589·93 Cal. 505·29 P. 121
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1892No. 13614California1,789 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This record presents three appeals, — from the judgment, from the order refusing a new trial, and from an order made after judgment refusing to dismiss the action because judgment was not entered within six months after its rendition.

The action was brought to recover, damages for the conversion of five hundred dollars, and it is averred in the complaint, “ that on the fourteenth day of June, A. D. 1887, plaintiff was possessed of five hundred ($500) dollars in gold coin of the United States, and that she *508 then was, and ever since has been, and now is, entitled to the possession thereof.” Conversion and damage are then charged, but there is no averment of ownership".

The defendants, did not demur, but answered by a general denial and plea of a former judgment in bar.

On the trial, no objection was made to the sufficiency of the complaint, but the issue of fact was, whether the money belonged to plaintiff or her husband, whose creditors had attached it.

It is now claimed that the complaint is insufficient to support the judgment, which was for the plaintiff, because it does not aver ownership or title in the plaintiff.

To enable a plaintiff to recover for property taken by…

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.