Craig v. Bateman
California Supreme Court
Craig v. Bateman, 49 Cal. 71 (Cal. 1874)
Craig v. Bateman
Opinion of the Court
We are of opinion that the answer of the defendants, in so far as it denies that there had been a final settlement of the accounts of Bateman, and denies that a final decree had been entered in the Probate Court upon such settlement, was sufficient in form and substance to defeat a motion for judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the pleadings.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- PETER CRAIG, Administrator of the Estate of J. H. Mullins v. MICHAEL C. BATEMAN, JOHN O'CONNOR and TIMOTHY P. REARDEN
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Sufficiency of Denials in an Answer.—If an admistrator brings an action against a former administrator of the same estate and his sureties, and, in his complaint, states the proceedings resulting in the appointment of the former administrator, his removal, and the appointment of the plaintiff, and then avers that the former administrator was afterwards cited to render an account, and rendered one; and that the Court settled the account, and rendered a final decree, in which it found that he was indebted to the estate in a sum named; and the defendants, in their answer, deny that there had been a final settlement of the accounts, or that a final decree had been entered in the Probate Court upon such settlement, the denials are sufficient to defeat a motion for judgment on the pleadings, even if the denials are coupled with an allegation that an appeal to the Supreme Court has been taken from the only decree rendered.