Haddad v. McDowell

CURTIS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment after the sustaining of a demurrer to plaintiff’s amended complaint without leave to amend. No application or request was made by the plaintiff to further amend his pleading. The complaint charged that the defendants had published two libelous articles regarding the plaintiff, one in a notice requiring the plaintiff to surrender within three days certain premises then held by him under lease from defendant corporation, and the other in a complaint filed for the purpose of recovering possession of said premises. The grounds of demurrer were: (1) Uncertainty, (2) misjoinder of parties defendant, (3) joinder of several causes of action and failure to separately state them, and (4) failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The order of the court sustaining the demurrer is general in its terms and does not indicáte the grounds upon which the court acted in rendering it or the reason therefor. If the demurrer is well taken as to any of the grounds stated therein, then the order of the court sustaining the demurrer must be affirmed by the reviewing court.

(Wilson

v.

Carter,

117 Cal. 53 [48 Pac. 983];

Sechrist

v.

Rialto Irr. Dist.,

129 Cal. 640 [62 Pac. 261];

Burke

v.

Maguire,

154 Cal. 456, 461 [98 Pac. 21];

Billesbach

v.

Larkey,

161 Cal. 649, 651 [120 Pac. 31];

Colburn

v.

Burlingame,

190 Cal. 697, 699 [27 A. L. R. 1374, 214 Pac. 226.].) In the last-named case this court declared the rule in the following terms: “There is nothing in the order of the court in sustaining the demurrer which indicates

[692]