From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Skirm v. Farrand

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1861
18 Cal. 314 (Cal. 1861)

Opinion

         Appeal from the Third District.

         Complaint in the ordinary form for professional services as attorney at law. The complaint was not verified, and the answer was a general denial. On the trial, plaintiff read the pleadings and rested. The Court instructed the jury to find for defendant. Verdict and judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appeals.

         COUNSEL

          Williams, Patterson & Stow, for Appellanf.

          R. F. Peckham, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Cope, J. concurring.

         OPINION

          BALDWIN, Judge

         It is apparent that no such construction can be given to the Act of 1860, amendatory of the Practice Act, as the appellant contends for; by such construction, the forty-sixth section and the sixty-fifth section would be in irreconcilable conflict. The object of the amendment to the forty-sixth section was to provide for a replication introduced under the act; and the object of the amendment to section sixty-five was to provide for the effect of matters in the replication; but it was not designed to work a change in the character of the answers, or to abolish the distinction as between those verified and those not verified. The omission of the words " when it is verified," in the amendment to section sixty-five, is a mere clerical misprision, readily corrected by reference to the whole body of the original act and amendments.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Skirm v. Farrand

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1861
18 Cal. 314 (Cal. 1861)
Case details for

Skirm v. Farrand

Case Details

Full title:SKIRM v. FARRAND

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1861

Citations

18 Cal. 314 (Cal. 1861)

Citing Cases

Warner v. Warner

( Code Civ. Proc., sec. 395; Watkins v. Degener , 63 Cal. 500; Cook v. Pendergast , 61 Cal. 72; Foye v. Simon…

Moss v. Atkinson

The notice from the possession of Perkey was not restricted. (Hunter v. Watson, 12 Cal. 363; Woodson v.…