Runk

Runk v. San Diego Flume Co.

Good Law
5 Cal. Unrep. 251·43 P. 518
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 1898L. A. No. 4California705 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vanclief, J.

Action to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. A demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that it does not state a cause of action, that in specified particulars it is uncertain, and that two causes of action are improperly joined therein, was sustained by the trial court; and thereupon, plaintiff declining to amend his complaint, judgment passed for defendants. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and contends that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The following is a copy of the complaint: “(1) That on the nineteenth day of July, A. D. 1894, the said defendants, contriving and maliciously intending to injure the said plaintiff in his good name and reputation, and to cause him to be imprisoned, falsely and maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause therefor, procured and caused plaintiff to be charged before E. J. Ensign, a justice of the peace of San Diego township, county of San Diego, state of California, with the crime of: ‘Without authority from the San Diego Flume Company (a corporation), of said county, or any agent thereof, did raise, disturb and open an appurtenance attached to a flume belonging to said San Diego Flume Company,…

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.