Skip to main content
· 6/12/1890

Clifford v. Allman

Citations

  • 84 Cal. 528
  • 24 P. 292
  • 1890 Cal. LEXIS 833

Syllabus

<p>Appeal from Judgment Dismissing Action — Review of Evidence after Sixty Days — Non-appealable Intermediate Order or Decision —Striking out Complaint. — Under section 956 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order or decision striking out a complaint is not appealable but may be reviewed upon appeal from the final judgment dismissing the action; and section 939 of that code does not apply to such intermediate order or decision, or preclude a review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support it when the appeal is taken from the judgment of dismissal after the lapse of sixty days.</p> <p>Id. —Bill of Exceptions—• Specification of Insufficiency of Evidence. — Section Ü48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring an exception to the verdict or decision upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support it to specify the particulars in which the evidence is alleged to be insufficient, has no application to a bill of exceptions to an intermediate non-appealable order or decision involving the merits or affecting tile judgment, which may be reviewed upon appeal from the final judgment, under section 956.</p> <p>Id. — Construction of Code —Meaning of “ Decision ” — Written Findings—Intermediate Decision—Exceptions. — The word “decision,” as used in sections 648 and 939 and in the first part of section 956 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where it is used as an alternative to the word “verdict,” refers to the written findings of fact and law mentioned in section 633 of the same code; but as used in the phrase “ any intermediate order or decision, ” employed in the latter part of section 956, the Word “decision ” does not refer to written findings, which are not required upon such orders; and an exception to an “intermediate order or decision ” is not an “ exception to the verdict or decision,” in the sense of section 939.</p> <p>Disobedience to Notary’s Subpiena—Striking out Pleading — Contempt. — To justify striking out the complaint or answer of a party for 'dis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a city contract was ultra vires and void where the mayor signed it but the city council never approved it as required by the city charter for the contract to be binding
  • “[T]he power of public officials in Georgia is limited by the laws that prescribe their authority.”
  • contract with the city which had not been properly approved as required by the city charter was ultra vires and void
  • “[I]f the contract is ambiguous in some respect, the court must apply the rules of contract construction to resolve the ambiguity.” (punctuation omitted)
  • city contract ultra vires and void where mayor signed but city council never approved as required by the city charter
  • where proposal was not approved by the city council as required by the city charter, it was ultra vires and void

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Vanclief

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.