Liening v. Gould
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
Pleadings in Justices’ Courts are not held to much strictness. Where plaintiff avers he is administrator in fact of the intestate, and this is not denied in the answer, no further proof of plaintiff’s right to sue is requisite.
Paying part of a ¡note when all is due is no consideration for an agreement to extend the time of payment.
If, after verdict, no motion he made for new trial, the Supreme Court will not review the testimony.
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court— Terry, C. J. concurring.
The points of Appellant are not well taken. Pleadings in Justices’ Courts are not held to much strictness. The complaint is substantially good. The plaintiff alleges that he is administrator in fact of the intestate. This is not denied in the answer. The failure to make the proof of the plaintiff’s title to sue, therefore, was no ground for a nonsuit.
There was no consideration for the alleged agreement of extension ; paying a part of a note was not enough when all was due.
The only matter in controversy really was as to the credit of thirty-five dollars claimed by defendant, as to which the proof was somewhat conflicting.
We do not see that any statement appears so authenticated as to enable us to review the testimony; for there was no motion for a new trial; but we ghotild not, under the circumstances, be disposed to interfere if a motion had been made for a new trial, and a proper statement settled.
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)