Craig v. Dowie

[177]

HALL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment against defendant for the sum of $1,764.90, together with interest thereon from the eleventh day of December, 1888, and costs of suit. The appeal was taken within sixty days from the entry of the judgment.

The first point presented is as to the sufficiency of the complaint as against a general and special demurrer. The complaint alleges, “That between the 9th day of October and the 11th day of December, both inclusive, A. D. 1888, at the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendant, furnished, paid and laid out to and for the use and benefit of defendant the sum of two thousand seven hundred and twenty-seven and thirty-six hundredths ($2727.36) dollars, which defendant then and there agreed to repay to plaintiff at said City and County of San Francisco on demand, together with legal interest. That though requested thereto by plaintiff, defendant has not paid the same nor any part thereof, except- the sum of nine hundred and sixty-two and forty-six hundredths ($962.46) dollars, and there is now due and owing to plaintiff from defendant therefor the sum of one thousand seven hundred and sixty-four and ninety-hundredths (1764.90) dollars, with legal interest thereon from the 11th day of December, 1888.”

The complaint in this case does not differ in any material respect from the complaint in

Pleasant

v. Samuels, 114 Cal. 34, [45 Pac. 998], which was held to be good as against a general and special demurrer in all respects similar to the demurrer in this case. We therefore hold that no error was committed by the court in overruling the demurrer.

The court made findings following the language of the complaint, and the point principally urged for a reversal of the judgment is that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings.

It appears that in 1888, the defendant, Dowie, was engaged in conducting “missions,” teaching and expounding certain doctrines and beliefs held by himself. The expenditures sued for in this action were made by plaintiff in connection with a “mission” held at the Grand Opera House in the city and county of San Francisco in that year by defendant, and the vital matter in dispute between plaintiff and