Jetty v. Craco

5 Citing cases

  1. Lever v. Garoogian

    41 Cal.App.3d 37 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 19 times

    (See 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Pleading, §§ 894-895, pp. 2488-2490.) Plaintiff has placed particular reliance upon the case of Jetty v. Craco, 123 Cal.App.2d 876 [ 267 P.2d 1055], which plaintiff claims supports his contention that defendant's general denial did not raise the issue of fraud. Plaintiff is mistaken.

  2. Erler v. Five Points Motors, Inc.

    249 Cal.App.2d 560 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 12 times
    In Erler v. Five Points Motors, Inc., 249 Cal.App.2d 560 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 516], the court, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, concluded that only where the defense claims that the plaintiff should have mitigated damages, but failed to do so, need the issue be affirmatively pleaded; but where the matter is one of "computation" — that is, of determining the plaintiff's actual out-of-pocket loss — "[i]t can be no surprise nor result in prejudice to a plaintiff" if the court admits evidence on the issue without an affirmative defense pleading.

    He can do this by any legal proof, and he is not bound to set out his proofs in his pleading." [Pp. 641-642.] (Followed in Jetty v. Craco, 123 Cal.App.2d 876, 880 [ 267 P.2d 1055]; see also Peters v. Papoulacos, 218 Cal.App.2d 791 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 689].) A very illuminating discussion of this subject by the great judge Benjamin Cardozo is to be found in McClelland v. Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 N.Y. 347 [ 169 N.E. 605].

  3. Peters v. Papoulacos

    218 Cal.App.2d 791 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 5 times

    Under his denial of the plaintiff's allegations of such a transaction, the defendant could offer proof that he did not borrow the money. (See Jetty v. Craco, 123 Cal.App.2d 876, 879 [ 267 P.2d 1055]; 58 C.J.S., Money Lent, § 6, p. 881.) The defendant's testimony was that the plaintiff sent him a check for $5,200 which he deposited in his New York bank account.

  4. Clinicas Del Camino Real, Inc. v. Baass

    No. C095603 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2023)

    He could not be expected to meet special defenses which are not pleaded and has a right to be protected against them." (Jetty v. Craco (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 876, 880.) "Just as the defendant is entitled to proceed with the knowledge that causes of action will not be asserted at trial that do not appear in the complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to assume that affirmative defenses omitted from the answer will not be asserted."

  5. Reuter v. Oakwood Constr. & Restoration Servs.

    No. G055569 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2020)

    However, Reuter's argument fails because an affirmative defense is only required for "new matter" outside of the complaint. (Jetty v. Craco (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 876, 880.) Agency was not new matter.