Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 Cal. 401

Himmelmann v. Spanagel

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1870

California Supreme Court · decided 1870-07-01

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth District, City and County of San Francisco.</p> <p>The appellants were sued jointly with other persons.</p> <p>The other facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1908

4 state decisions

201870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Rhodes, C. J.,

¶1delivered the. opinion of the Court:

¶2The appellants, Roper and Reay, entered their appearance in the action, and not having demurred or answered, their default was entered. Their objections to the complaint go to the sufficiency of the statement of the facts, but not to the sufficiency of the facts themselves, and cannot be entertained unless presented by special demurrer. Their default amounting to an admission of the facts stated in the complaint, there was no issue as between them and the plaintiff. They are, therefore, unaffected by the findings, and have no cause to complain that the judgment is not sustained by, or is repugnant to, the findings.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/39/cal/401 · .json · Public domain