Diamond Coal Co. v. Cook

Citations

• 6 Cal. Unrep. 446
• 61 P. 578
• 1900 Cal. LEXIS 1083

Syllabus

<p>Appeal.—Where Defendant Demurred to the Complaint, but the record did not show that the demurrer was passed on, or that any-ruling thereon was called for, but defendant afterward answered, the demurrer must be deemed to have been waived on appeal.</p> <p>Pleading.—In Action Against Two, a Complaint Alleging that plaintiff and defendant, on a certain date, entered into a written agreement, and setting out the agreement, was sufficient as an averment that a certain one of the defendants entered into such agreement.</p> <p>Corporation—Presumption of Authority to Take Land.—Where plaintiff owned a certificate of purchase of state school lands, and the court found that plaintiff was a corporation, but there was no other proof, such certificate is admissible in evidence, as it will be presumed that the corporation had power to purchase and hold lands.</p> <p>Vendor and Vendee.—In an Action to Cancel a Sale of Land to one, and to enjoin another from removing wood therefrom, on which wood the second defendant claimed a lien by virtue of a promise by plaintiff and the other defendant to pay for cutting it, such second defendant cannot object to the validity of the contract of sale between plaintiff and the first defendant, when offered to prove the issues between them.</p> <p>Trial—Motion to Strike Out Evidence.—-Where Plaintiff Objected to testimony, and the court reserved decision, and, on reexamination in chief, the evidence was given without objection, it was within the discretion of the court to allow a motion to strike out the evidence without a restatement of the grounds of objection, it being regarded as a renewal of the first objection.</p> <p>Statute of Frauds.—Where Defendant had Cut Wood on plaintiff’s property at the instance of a third person, and claimed a payment from plaintiff by virtue of a promise to pay, made after the cutting, but defendant had stated that he would hold the wood until he received payment, and that he did not care whether plaintiff or