From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cunningham v. Skinner

Supreme Court of California
Jul 18, 1884
65 Cal. 385 (Cal. 1884)

Opinion

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Santa Cruz.

         The action was to recover the possession of personal property. The complaint was in the usual form, alleging ownership and right of possession. The averments of the answer are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. A general demurrer to the answer was sustained.

         COUNSEL:

         Ferdinand J. McCann, for Appellant.

         J. M. Lesser, for Respondent.


         OPINION

         THE COURT.

         The denial that the plaintiff is the owner of the personal property described in the complaint, and the allegation that the defendant "has not sufficient information or belief upon the subject to enable him to answer" the allegation of the plaintiff that he is entitled to the possession of said property, "and on that ground he (defendant) denies the same," is sufficient to put in issue the allegation of the plaintiff that he is the owner, and entitled to the possession of said property; and the court erred in holding on the trial that it was not. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437.)

         Judgment reversed.

         Hearing in Bank denied.


Summaries of

Cunningham v. Skinner

Supreme Court of California
Jul 18, 1884
65 Cal. 385 (Cal. 1884)
Case details for

Cunningham v. Skinner

Case Details

Full title:JAMES F. CUNNINGHAM, RESPONDENT, v. HENRY SKINNER, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 18, 1884

Citations

65 Cal. 385 (Cal. 1884)
4 P. 373

Citing Cases

People v. Swift

(Landers v. Bolton , 26 Cal. 417; 85 Am. Dec. 78; Gay v. Winter , 34 Cal. 161; Code Civ. Proc., sec. 590. See…

Cooke v. Aguirre

The issue as to whether plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the property is material, as defendant…