Whitwell v. Thomas
Before: Burnett, Field, Terry
Synopsis
Whore a complaint in an action on a promissory note executed by two defendants, averred that the defendants were partners, and that the note was executed by them, and the answer simply denied that the defendants were partners, and did not deny that they executed the note: Held, that the averment of partnership was immateral, and that plaintiff was entitled to judgment on the pleadings.
The execution of the notes, not the copartnership of the defendants at the time, constituted the material averment.
The test of the materiality of an averment in a pleading is this: could the averment be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient ?
Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., and Burnett, J., concurring. The only question for consideration is, whether any material averment of the complaint is denied by the answer. The test [500]of materiality is this: Could the averment be striken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient ? (Practice Act, § 66.) Judged by this test, the averment of copartnership is immaterial. The complaint would be sufficient if this were stricken out. The execution of the notos—not the copartnership of the defendants at the time, constitutes the material averment, and this is not controverted.
Judgment affirmed.
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)