¶1I concur in the judgment upon the ground that the original answer of the defendant, having been superseded by an amended answer, was not admissible in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. (Ponce v. McElvy, 51 Cal. 222; Mecham v. McKay, 37 Cal. 154; Morris v. Lachman, 68 Cal. 109.) Upon the other questions discussed, I express no opinion.
77 Cal. 340
Stern v. Loewenthal
Decided November 16, 1888
California Supreme Court · decided 1888-11-16
The action was brought to recover damages for a slander. The complaint alleged that the slanderous words spoken by the defendant of the plaintiff were, “He is a thief,” and “He is doing business on my money.” The original answer of the defendant contained a plea of justification, which was omitted from the amended answer. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which, and from an order refusing a new trial, the defendant appeals.
Relies on Mecham v. McKay · Brewster v. Johnson · Morris v. Lachman
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1888-11-16
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 1960
3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
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 →