Currier v. Nelson

Full title: AMOS CURRIER, Appellant, v. GEORGE NELSON et al., Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 29, 1892

96 Cal. 505 (Cal. 1892)

31 P. 531

Opinion

96 Cal. 505 31 P. 531 AMOS CURRIER, Appellant, v. GEORGE NELSON et al., Respondents No. 14138 Supreme Court of California December 29, 1892

         Department Two

         96 Cal. 505 at 509.

         Original Opinion of November 29, 1892, Reported at 96 Cal. 505.

         JUDGES: De Haven, J. McFarland, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

         OPINION

          DE HAVEN, Judge

On December 29, 1892, the following order was made, upon a motion of appellant to modify the judgment:

         De Haven, J.

         The motion of appellant to modify the judgment rendered in this case on November 29, 1892, by directing the court below to enter judgment for the plaintiff on the findings, is denied.

         We did not, in the opinion filed on that date, intend to be understood as saying that upon proof of the single fact that the parties to the deed of September 17, 1879, adopted the description which it contains by mistake, the defendant would be entitled to a judgment in the action, nor do we think the language used by us can be so construed. The question as to what facts should be alleged, in order to constitute an equitable defense to the action growing out of such mistake, if made, was not before us, and it was not our purpose to give a complete outline of all that such a pleading should contain. The sufficiency of such an answer must be determined by the court when it is filed.