Dillon v. Cross (1907) · DecisionDepot

Dillon v. Cross

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jun 20, 1907 No. Civ. No. 203.Published

Before: Hall

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a complaint alleging essential facts only inferentially is sufficient in the absence of a demurrer, and that the defendant was entitled to a credit for cross-demands in an accounting action.

Issues

Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged a trust to justify an equitable action without a jury trial.
Whether the statute of limitations barred the action for a continuous trust.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the defendant's cross-demands for money advanced to the plaintiff.

Disposition. modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it has been uniformly held that, in the absence of a demurrer or an objection to offered evidence, a complaint that alleges an essential fact only inferentially or as a conclusion of law is good.”

“The case made by the pleadings and the evidence was a continuous trust, and the statute of limitations did not commence to run until demand and a refusal to account for the money”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. Frank H. Kerrigan, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

HALL, J.

Appeal from judgment and order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Plaintiff, Patrick F. Dillon, brought this action against Patrick Dillon, the father of plaintiff, for an accounting of moneys claimed to have been delivered to said defendant by plaintiff in trust to be held and invested for plaintiff, and for general relief. The cause was tried, and judgment rendered for plaintiff during the lifetime of defendant, who subsequently dying, the executor of his last will was substituted as party defendant. By the term ‘ ‘ defendant, ’ ’ when used in this opinion, we refer to the original defendant.

The action was tried upon the issues raised by the amended complaint and the answer thereto, no demurrer having been filed to the amended complaint.

Before the case came on to be tried defendant made a demand that the cause be tried by a jury, but the court, taldng the view that the action was one in equity, refused the demand for a jury, but allowed a jury as advisory to the court only, and made findings in favor of plaintiff, and gave judgment accordingly.

Acting upon the same theory as to the nature of the action, the court found that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations.

Appellant contends that the court erred in refusing a jury trial, and in finding that the action was not barred. Whether the court erred or not depends upon whether or not the complaint alleges a trust by defendant for plaintiff.

It is insisted that no trust is alleged. Although it is alleged that plaintiff handed to defendant various sums of money aggregating $2,542 “to be kept, deposited and invested by him, the said Patrick Dillon, for this plaintiff, and to be returned to plaintiff on demand,” and “that the said defendant, Patrick Dillon, did deposit of the said sums of money so received by him in trust for this plaintiff, in the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society in the City and County of San Francisco . . . the sum of about $1,100,” it is contended that it does not appear from the complaint that defendant accepted the money, or agreed to keep, deposit or invest it for plaintiff.

[768]

Dillon v. Cross

AI Brief

Synopsis

HALL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief