Green v. Palmer
Before: Field
Synopsis
Is an action for the seizure and conversion of a bag of gold coin, the complaint, after the usual averments, went on to detail the manner of the seizure, with the incidents occurring on the street at the time, and everything done by defendants, plaintiff and the “ crowd,” relating to or constituting the evidence of the wrongful conversion ; Held, that this narration should have been stricken out, on motion, as irrelevant and redundant matter.
Under our system of pleading, facts only must be stated. This means the facts, as contradistinguished from the law, from argument, from hypothesis, and from the evidence of the facts.
Those facts, and those only, must be stated, which constitute the cause of action, the defense, or the reply.
Bach party must allege every fact which he is required to prove, and will be precluded from proving any fact not alleged; and he must allege nothing affirmatively which he is not required to prove. Negative allegations, however, are frequently necessary, though they are not to be proved.
If every fact essential to the claim or defense be not stated, the adverse party may demur; and if any fact not essential to the claim or defense—in other words, any except issuable facts, be stated, the adverse party may move to strike out the unessential parts.
An unessential, or, what is the same .thing, an immaterial allegation, is one which can be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient, and need not be proved or disproved. Whether an allegation be material, may be determined by the question, “ Can it be made the subject of a material issue ? ” In other words, “ If it be denied, will the failure to prove it decide the case in whole or in part V’ If it will not, then the fact alleged is not material.
All statements in a pleading must be concisely made, and when once made, must not be repeated.
Plaintiff was walking along the street with a bag of gold coin in his hand. Two of defendants, a deputy Sheriff and Constable, seized him, and by force took the bag of coin from him. Plaintiff sues for the seizure and conversion of the coin. Defendants gave in evidence three judgments and executions, in favor of three of their number, and against Alfred A. Green, brother of plaintiff, and offered to prove that the bag of coin was the property of Alfred, and was seized under these executions, and applied to their satisfaction. The Court excluded the proof. Held, that such exclusion was erroneous; that plaintiff could claim no exemption from the seizure of coin held, as this was, in his hand, as he might, perhaps, in reference to money upon his person. The coin in the hand was, like a horse held by the bridle, subject to seizure on execution against its owner.
Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. concurring.
[414]The complaint, in this case, as a pleading, has no precedent, and, we trust, will,never serve as one. It is stuffed full of irrelevant matter— suggestions, charges and statements, which subserve ijo useful purpose, and are only calculated, when read to the jury, to excite prejudice against the defendants.
The action is for the seizure and conversion of a bag of gold coin, of the value of $4,000, alleged to be the property of the plaintiff. After the usual, and the only necessary averments as to the plaintiff’s ownership and possession of the property, its value, and its forcible seizure by the defendants, and its conversion to their use to his damage, the complaint proceeds to detail the manner in which the seizure was made, with the incidents occurring on the street, and everything done by the defendants, the plaintiff and the “ crowd,” relating to or constituting the evidence of the wrongful conversion. All this narration should have been stricken out, as irrelevant and redundant matter, and the Court erred in refusing the motion made for that purpose. The rules of pleading, under our system of practice, are very simple, and can be readily followed ; yet we find, in numerous instances before us, pleadings filled with recitals, digressions and stories, which only tend to prolixity and obscurity. We extract from a manual, written by one of the commissioners engaged in framing the New York code, some rules of pleading, with the observations of the writer thereon, as expressive of our views as to what should be stated in the pleadings under our Practice Act. The greater portion of the Practice Act, it is known, is taken from that code. We omit the first rule given in the manual, and commence with what is there desigated as the second:
“ First Rule.—Facts only must be stated. This means * * the facts, as contradistinguished from the law, from argument, from hypothesis, and from the evidence of the facts. A legal inference or conclusion from the facts should not be stated; that is not the province of the pleadings under our system, which is to develop the facts. To apply the law to the facts, that is, to draw thence legal inferences or conclusions, is the province of the Court. Argument in a pleading is equally inappropriate, for that is to be made orally before the Court when the facts are developed. Hypothetical statements are improper, for the Court is to deal not with hypothetical cases, but with the facts of the case in hand. The defendant’s pretenses are equally improper, as they are not the facts of plaintiff’s case.
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)