McGuire v. Quintana
California Supreme Court
McGuire v. Quintana, 52 Cal. 427 (Cal. 1877)
McGuire v. Quintana
Opinion of the Court
The offered evidence should have been received. It tended to show that nothing was due to the contractor, the Bridge Company. (Pomroy’s Rem. Rights, sec. 700; Frisch v. Caler, 21 Cal. 71; Fairchild v. Amshaugh, 22 Cal. 575.)
A breach of contract and damages under it must be specially pleaded. (Blethen v. Blalce, 44 Cal. 117; Piercy v. ¿Sabin, 10 Cal. 22; Philips on Mechanics’ Liens, sec. 424.)
The answer of the defendant was a general denial—nothing more. It was not competent for him to prove, under an answer of that character, “ that the buildings- were not finished by the contractor according to the contract,” etc. (Blethen v. Blake, 44 Cal. 117.)
Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- JAMES McGUIRE v. E. QUINTANA and THE CALIFORNIA BRIDGE AND BUILDING COMPANY
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Pleading Violation oe Contract.—In an action by a sub-contractor against the contractor and owner, to recover for the value of materials furnished the contractor in the erection of a building, the owner, if he relies for a defense on the fact that the building was not finished by the contractor according to the contract, must plead the same specially in his answer.