Craig v. City of Los Angeles

YORK, P. J.

This appeal is prosecuted from “all decrees, orders and the judgment of dismissal rendered against plaintiff and for defendants” in an action for damages for conspiracy to defraud.

In order to state the contentions of appellant, it will be .necessary to quote

verbatim

her so-called “statement of questions involved”, because of the involved and confused manner in which such contentions are stated in her brief, to wit:

“ (a) The trial court erred in refusing to overrule the ‘Joint General Demurrer ’ by all defendants.

“(b) The trial court erred by denying plaintiff’s certified cross-motion for the same final judgment demanded by defendants’ uncertified joint general demurrer against plaintiff’s verified complaint as this High Court ruled that ‘Plaintiff has a righf to judgment . . . when defendant files an unverified answer to his verified complaint. ’ (21 Cal. Jur. 237.) ‘No credit is given to unsworn

answers—In judicio non creditur nisi juratis.

. . . ’ (Code of Civil Procedure, secs. 446, 1962.)

“(c) The trial court erred by vacating the default judgment against defendant Beardsley, or any other defendant, all of whom were served personally, in their individual capacity, and charged with a continuing conspiracy which estops the statute of limitations ever starting to run as proved by their fear to answer and deny the charges under oath, which forced them to default.

“(d) The trial court erred by dismissing this cause against any defendant, all of whom were personally served in their individual capacity and refused to answer under oath as required by law. (Code of Civil Procedure 446, etc.) ”

Although the ease of

Woodard

v.

State Bar,

16 Cal. (2d) 755 [108 Pac. (2d) 407], decided by the Supreme Court on December 20, 1940, is, of course, not

res judicata,

nevertheless, the law as declared therein has the same force and effect as a ruling by that court in any other case, and this court is bound by the law as therein stated. A full state