Pavisich v. Bean

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

3,900

Attorney(S)

P. B. Nagle, for the Appellant, argued that the nonsuit should have been granted, and that the third and fourth counts in the complaint did not state a cause of action, and cited Frisch v. Caler, 21 Cal. 71. J. Chadbourne, for the Respondent, cited Higgins v. Wortell, 18 Cal. 333; Allen v. Patterson, 3 Seld. 479; and 1 Chitty's Pl. 340, 341.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

3,900

Attorney(S)

P. B. Nagle, for the Appellant, argued that the nonsuit should have been granted, and that the third and fourth counts in the complaint did not state a cause of action, and cited Frisch v. Caler, 21 Cal. 71. J. Chadbourne, for the Respondent, cited Higgins v. Wortell, 18 Cal. 333; Allen v. Patterson, 3 Seld. 479; and 1 Chitty's Pl. 340, 341.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

CHARLES PAVISICH v. LEROY S. BEAN

JUDGES: McKinstry, J.

OPINION

McKINSTRY, Judge

The answer was a general denial. There was no plea of non-joinder of parties defendant, and the motion for non-suit was properly denied.

The third and fourth counts in the plaintiff's complaint state a cause of action. (Wilkins v. Stidger, 22 Cal. 231; Abadie v. Carrillo, 32 Id. 172; Merritt v. Glidden, 39 Id. 564.)

Judgment affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

CHARLES PAVISICH v. LEROY S. BEAN

Comments