Hackett v. Bank of California
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance (Cal. 1961)
- Vick v. Grasser (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
- Stubbs v. Abercrombie (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
- Vere v. Rosafa (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1919)
- Altpeter v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1915)
- Frost v. Witter (Cal. 1901)
- Wheeler v. West (Cal. 1888)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The Court below erred in allowing the plaintiff to file the second amended complaint, which changed the proceeding from an action ex delicto to an action ex contractu. (Ramirez v. Murray, 5 Cal. 222.) Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except in certain particulars which do not affect the question, is like § 68 of the former Practice Act, as the same was amended in 1853, and as the same stood when Ramirez v. Murray was decided.
The amendment was not permissible under § 470 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because here the allegations “ to which the proof was directed ” weré unproved, “ not in some particular or particulars only, but in their general scope and meaning.”
The nonsuit should have been granted.
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded, for further proceedings.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.