Berry

Berry v. Kowalsky

Good Law
3 Cal. Unrep. 418·27 P. 286
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 22, 1891Nos. 13,116; 13,309California1,794 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Haven, J.

I concur in the judgment upon the ground last discussed in the opinion of Commissioner Vanclief. Upon the other points I express no opinion.

Lead Opinion

Vanclief, J.

There are two appeals in this case, upon distinct records. No. 13,116 is from the final judgment, and upon the judgment-roll. No. 13,309 is from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, upon a record consisting of a statement of the case in addition to the judgment-roll. On the appeal from the judgment it is contended that the *419 court erred in overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint, and that the findings do not support the judgment. On the appeal from the order the errors assigned are errors in law occurring at the trial. The following is a copy of the verified complaint: “The said plaintiffs complain of the said defendant, and for cause of action herein allege: That on the 15th day of July, 1887, the plaintiffs paid to defendant the sum of $100 for the right and privilege of delivering to defendant five hundred tons of wheat at any time within thirty days from said fifteenth day of July, at the rate of one dollar and eighty cents per cental. Said contract is in the following words and figures, to wit:

*420 This complaint was demurred to on the ground (1) that it is ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain, in that “no meaning is alleged of the words…

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.