Bane

Bane v. Peerman

Good Law
125 Cal. 220·1899 Cal. LEXIS 831·57 P. 885
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 23, 1899S. F. No. 1005California423 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

Since this appeal was taken respondent, D. C. Bane, died, and Margaret E. Bane, administratrix of his estate, has been substituted hy this court as plaintiff and respondent.

This action is in claim and delivery. Findings and judgment *221 were in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals from the judgment on the judgment-roll.

It is contended by appellant that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the findings are defective and do not support the judgment.

The complaint alleges: “That on the ninth day of July, 1896, said plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of all the following goods and chattels: .... that the said defendant on the ninth day of July, 1896, at Santa Rosa, Sonoma county, without plaintiff’s consent, and wrongfully, took said goods and chattels from the possession of plaintiff, and has continuously retained the same.” A demand is alleged to have been made “on the ninth day of July, 1896,” for possession of said goods, and that defendant “still unlawfully withholds and detains said goods and chattels,” et cetera. The complaint was sworn to and filed on July 23, 1896.

The defects…

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.