Pottkamp v. Buss

Citations

• 5 Cal. Unrep. 462
• 46 P. 169
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 1061

Syllabus

<p>Pleading—Amended Complaint After Remittitur.—Where the supreme court held it error to refuse permission to plaintiff to file Ms amended complaint, and remanded the cause “for a new trial, with leave to the parties to amend the pleadings,” plaintiff may,, after the remittitur goes down, file, without leave of the trial court, an amended complaint other than the one offered on the first trial.</p> <p>Pleading—Amended Complaint.—The Point That It cannot be Ascertained how the cause of action in an amended complaint is connected with the cause of action stated in the original complaint is not reached by demurrer to the amended complaint on the ground that it is “ambiguous, unintelligible, and uncertain”; it not appearing in the amended complaint what was alleged in the original.</p> <p>Witness—Question Calling for Legal Effect of Instrument.— The issue being whether an instrument, in terms an absolute conveyance, was accepted as such, as contended by plaintiff, or as security, as contended by defendant, a question asked plaintiff, “State what you believed that document to be at the time it was delivered to you,” will not be held to ask an opinion as to its legal effect.</p> <p>Witness—Question Calling for Conclusion of Law.—Where one has testified on cross-examination as to the time when, and the circumstances under which, he signed an instrument, a further question on cross-examination, “Do you swear that you signed that instrument as a witness?” calls for a conclusion of law based on the facts stated by him.</p>