Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

96 Cal. 602

Kirsch v. Derby

California Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1892

California Supreme Court · decided 1892-12-01

The action was brought against the defendant, as executor of the estate of Julia Kirsch, deceased, to recover the sum of $3,725, alleged to have been received by the defendant as such executor from the German Savings and Loan Society, “ to and for the use of and belonging to plaintiff,” which the defendant refused to pay to plaintiff upon demand made therefor.

Relies on Munro v. Pacific Coast Dredging & Reclamation Co. · Blasingame v. Home Ins. Co. of City of N.Y. · Heeser v. Miller

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-12-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1921

3 state decisions

101892190019101920decided

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 →

McFabland, J.—

¶1Defendant made default in the court below, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff. Defendant appeals upon the judgment roll; and the point insisted on for a reversal is, that the complaint is defective, because plaintiff, by said complaint, has not properly pleaded either the probate of the will of Julia Kirsch, deceased, or the appointment of defendant as executor.

¶2We are satisfied that the probate of the will and the executorship of appellant are sufficiently pleaded. (Weller v. Dickinson, 93 Cal. 108; Wise v. Williams, 72 Cal. *605547; Munro v. Dredging Co., 84 Cal. 515; 18 Am. St. Rep. 248.) But the complaint states sufficient facts for a personal judgment against appellant. If there were any valid objections to the complaint on the ground of ambiguity or uncertainty, such objections could have been taken only by special demurrer. (Demartin v. Albert, 68 Cal. 277; Blanc v. Klumpke, 29 Cal. 156; Blasingame v. Home Ins. Co., 75 Cal. 633; Heeser v. Miller, 77 Cal. 192.)

¶3The judgment is affirmed.

¶4De Haven, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

/96/cal/602 · .json · Public domain