Skip to main content
· 6/12/1894

Treanor v. Houghton

Citations

  • 103 Cal. 53
  • 36 P. 1081
  • 1894 Cal. LEXIS 719

Syllabus

<p>Appeal—Errors Cured by Verdict—Waiver.—Where there is no objection to the pleadings, or to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, which are full and explicit upon all the material issues, all errors and omissions are cured by verdict, and waived, and cannot be urged upon appeal for the first time.</p> <p>Id.—Definition—Presumption—Omission Supplied at Trial.—The expression “ cured by verdict,” signifies that the court will, after a verdict, presume or intend that the particular thing which appears to be defectively or imperfectly stated or omitted in the pleadings was duly proven at the trial; and where in an action tried by the court it appears affirmatively by the record that what was omitted in the complaint was supplied without objection at the trial and found by the court, objection to the sufficiency of the complaint is waived.</p> <p>Id.—Action Upon Street Assessment—Time Limited for Work—Defective Pleading Cured by Verdict.—In an action to enforce a street assessment, where it appears that the street to be improved was divided in sections, and several contracts let for the several sections, a complaint not expressly averring the time specified in the contract for the commencement and completion of the work under the contracts, but averring “that all the work ordered to be done was completed pursuant to the contracts within the time given by the commissioner of streets in the contracts,” though insufficient in the face of a special demurrer, contains an inferential statement that the contracts specified the time within which the work was to be done, and, the defective allegation is cured by verdict.</p> <p>Id.—Uniformity of Assessment.—Where the complaint alleges that the “commissioner of streets made in the manner and form required by law, an assessment upon the lots and lands fronting thereon, each lot or portion of a lot being separately assessed in proportion to the frontage at a rate per front foot sufficient to cover the total expen

Judges: Searls

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.