Benham

Benham v. Connor

Good Law
113 Cal. 168·1896 Cal. LEXIS 760·45 P. 258
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 5, 1896No. 15898California712 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Belcher, J.

This action was brought to recover the amount due on three negotiable promissory notes, each of which was separately set out in the complaint, and alleged to have been executed by the defendant, and to have been indorsed by the payee thereof to the plaintiff. The complaint was duly verified. In due time the defendant filed an unverified answer to the complaint, containing a general denial of all its allegations, and setting up as a counterclaim an alleged cause of action against the payee of two of the said notes. Thereafter, the plaintiff served notice on the defendant that on the twenty-ninth day of April, 1892, he would move the court to strike from the files the said answer, and for judgment on the pleadings, upon the ground that the said document was unverified, and was sham and irrelevant.

On April 28th the defendant served on the attorneys for the plaintiff a properly verified amended answer, but they refused to admit service of the same. This answer contained no denials whatever, but set up the same counterclaim as that found in the original answer, and also a second counterclaim, consisting of another alleged cause of action against the payee of the said two notes. On…

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.