Welsh v. Bardshar
Before: Cooper
Synopsis
Pleading—Admissions of Original Answer—Amendment—Findings. —An amended answer supersedes the original as a pleading; and it is immaterial that admissions contained in the original answer are inconsistent with the findings, if not expressly adopted as part of the amended answer.
Id.— Construction of Amended Answer — Eeference.— Where the amended answer to a second cause of action refers to and adopts certain paragraphs “of the answer to the first cause of action set forth in the complaint, and makes them a part of the amended answer to the second cause of action,” etc., the intention of the pleader is manifestly to adopt the paragraphs of the amended answer, and not those of the original answer.
Id.—Finding against Answer—Water Eights—Injunction—Appeal. —In an action to enjoin the interference of the defendant with plaintiff’s water-ditch, where the defendant in his answer claimed the right to thirty inches of water, the fact that the findings and judgment awarded him only twenty-five inches of water is not the subject of complaint upon appeal of the plaintiff, on the ground that the findings are inconsistent with the answer.
Id.—Findings—Clerical Mistake—Probative Fact—Eights Subject to Agreement.—A clerical mistake in the finding of a probative fact as to the date of a contract between the parties adjusting water rights of the defendant is immaterial where the court finds that plaintiff’s ownership of his water-ditch is subject to defendant’s rights under the agreement, and awards to the defendant less water than that allowed by the agreement.
COOPER, C.
This action was brought to restrain defendant from interfering with a certain water-ditch alleged to belong to plaintiff, and to recover damages for alleged wrongful acts of defendant.
[155]
The case was tried before the court, findings filed, and judgment thereupon entered for defendant.
The appeal is from the judgment on the judgment-roll, and the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings is not questioned. Appellant claims that the findings are contradictory and contrary to the admissions of the answer in several respects. This claim is based upon the contention that the original answer is, as to certain matters, made the answer in the case, and that the portions of the answer so claimed to be the defendant’s pleading, contain admissions contrary to the findings.
The amended answer superseded the original as a pleading.
(Gilman
v.
Cosgrove,
22 Cal. 358;
Pfister
v.
Wade,
69 Cal. 133;
Schneider
v.
Brown,
85 Cal. 206.)
The answer, as amended, contains certain specific denials, and averments, numbered in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as to the first count or cause of action alleged in the complaint. It is then alleged in paragraph 6 as follows:—
“And for amended answer to the second cause of action set forth in the complaint herein, defendant adopts paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the answer to the first cause of action set forth in the complaint, and makes them a part of the amended answer to the second cause of action herein, the same as if they were repeated herein.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)