Healey v. Norton
Healey v. Norton
Opinion of the Court
Action against the defendant, an indorser, on three promissory notes. The complaint was unverified, and the answer was a general denial, and that the notes
There is no substantial merit in the appeal. The objection that the findings are insufficient to cover the issues is untenable (Pralus v. Mining Co., 35 Cal. 34; Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 184; Moore v. Waterworks Co., 68 Cal. 146, 8 Pac. 816); and the further objection that the findings are unsupported by the evidence equally so. The only particular suggested under the latter point is as to the sufficiency of the demand and notice, and of that there is no question. Judgment and order affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- HEALEY v. NORTON
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Trial.—A Finding That All the Allegations of the complaint are true, and all the allegations of the answer untrue, is sufficient.