Cochran v. Goodman
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
A declaration setting forth that plaintiff had purchased a quantity of goods from W. & P., “ then and there acting as the agents of defendant,” is only another form of declaring that he had purchased from the defendant, and is sufficiently certain to prevent any misapprehension of its meaning, and is good on demurrer.
Where the complaint, in hcec verba, set forth the bill of sale, it was held to remedy a defect in the description of the quantity of the goods sold: a party must be presumed to know what was intended by his own account.
Heydenfeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.
The plaintiffs allege the purchase of “a quantity of malt from Peck & Whitcomb, then and there acting as the agents for defendant.” This is only another form of declaring that they had purchased from the defendant. It is sufficiently certain to prevent any misapprehension of its meaning; and is, therefore, no good cause of demurrer.
The description of a “quantity of malt,” is certainly a loose and indefinite detail of the contract; but it is aided by setting out, “in hcec verba” the bill of the article purchased, as rendered by the defendant. It is true, that that is not definite as to quantity; but, as the object of every allegation in a declaration, is to inform the defendant with what he is charged, it seems to me, that nothing can effect this better than the mode adopted, as it is a necessary presumption that he must know what was intended by his own account.
There is, I think, no good ground of demurrer; and the order sustaining it must be reversed, with costs.
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)