Skip to main content
· 7/1/1860

Kuhland v. Sedgwick

Citations

  • 17 Cal. 123

Syllabus

<p>In this case, the answer being insufficient as a denial of the allegations in the complaint, and the Court having instructed the jury to find for plaintiff: Seld, that the instruction was right—no evidence being required on the part of plaintiff.</p> <p>If such instruction were technically erroneous it would not be sufficient to reverse the judgment.</p> <p>Where the complaint in replevin averred that on a certain day plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the property, and that its value was $1,000; and the answer denied that on the day specified the “ plaintiff was the owner and lawfully in possession; ” and, as to its value, averred that the defendant has no knowledge, etc., and therefore denies that it is worth $1,000: Held, that the answer is insufficient, because it raises an immaterial issue as to time; and, as to the possession of the property, that it amounts merely to a conclusion of law.</p> <p>Such an answer raises no issue as to the allegation of “ possession,” except in conjunction with the allegation of ownership, and as each of the allegations is sufficient to sustain the complaint, the issue presented by the conjunctive denial is irrelevant and immaterial.</p> <p>The denial as to value, being based on the want of knowledge or information, is insufficient.</p> <p>The attorney of plaintiff, being a Notary Public, may take the affidavit verifying the complaint.</p> <p>The objections to the verification to a complaint that it was not authenticated by the seal of the Notary; that there was no venue to the affidavit; that there was no evidence that the officer was a Notary Public, etc., being technical, should be taken in the Court below, and cannot be raised for the first time in this Court.</p> <p>Where an-amended answer is complete in itself, and is inconsistent with the original answer, the two cannot stand together.</p> <p>Absence of evidence is no ground for continuance, unless reasonable diligence has been used to procure it. The party mus

Judges: Cope

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.