Ah Goon v. Tarpey (1885) · DecisionDepot

Ah Goon v. Tarpey

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jun 3, 1885 No. No. 8633Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Variances regarding names, wage amounts, and the identity of the contracting party were immaterial and did not mislead the parties. Additionally, the court properly struck a garnishment defense that failed to state a valid defense to the complaint.

Issues

Whether variances in names, wage amounts, and contract descriptions were material.
Whether the court erred in striking a portion of the answer relating to garnishment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the statement in the assignment that the contract was with the Melrose Smelting & Refining Works—if variances, were immaterial, and misled no one”

“The court did not err in striking out that portion of the answer relating to garnishment; it contained no defense to the action stated in the complaint.”

Synopsis

Appeal—Immaterial Variance.—Reversal is not Warranted by-variances between allegations and- proof which are immaterial, if no one is misled thereby.

By the COURT. 1. The difference in the names Ah Yak and Ah Jack; also as to whether the men were employed to be paid one dollar, or a dollar and a quarter, or a dollar and a half; and the statement in the assignment that the contract was with the Melrose Smelting & Refining Works—if variances, were immaterial, and misled no one: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 469.

2. The court did not err in striking out that portion of the answer relating to garnishment; it contained no defense to the action stated in the complaint.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Ah Goon v. Tarpey

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief