Houghton

Houghton v. Trumbo

Good Law
103 Cal. 239·1894 Cal. LEXIS 756·37 P. 152
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 26, 1894No. 15518California705 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This may be described, generally, as an action for an accounting between plaintiff and defendants, of matters growing out of business connected with the property known as the Bijo.u Theater. Defendant Trumbo filed a demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled. He then filed an answer and also a cross-complaint. Defendant Thomas did not demur, *240 but filed an answer and cross-complaint. Each of the defendants filed an answer to the other’s cross-complaint. The judgment was rendered for plaintiff against Trumbo for a certain sum of money; against Thomas for a certain sum of money; and also in favor of Trumbo against Thomas for a certain sum of money. Thomas appeals from the judgment. He procured the case to be submitted upon his own points and authorities, because none had been filed by respondent within the time prescribed by the rules of this court.

There is no bill of exceptions or statement before us which we can consider. The defendant Trumbo made a motion for a new trial, and submitted a draft of a bill of exceptions to be used on his said motion, and on any appeal which he might take. The judge certified it in this language: “The foregoing bill of exceptions is hereby…

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.