From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boys v. Shawhan

Supreme Court of California
Feb 24, 1891
88 Cal. 111 (Cal. 1891)

Opinion

         Department One

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial.

         COUNSEL

          Charles H. Jackson, and Henry C. McPike, for Appellants.

          James R. Smith, and D. C. Ward, for Respondent.


         OPINION

         THE COURT          The plaintiff brought this action against W. D. Shawhan, Mary Shawhan, and John E. Shawhan, and alleged in his amended complaint that on the twenty-second day of December, 1886, "the said defendants, and each of them," were indebted to his assignor in the sum of $ 408.55 for certain merchandise "sold and delivered to said defendants at their special instance and request." The defendants answered the complaint, denying all of its allegations. The court, having tried the cause without a jury, made the following finding of fact: "That all the allegations and averments in the plaintiff's amended complaint are true"; and, as a [25 P. 1064] conclusion of law, found "that said plaintiff is entitled to judgment against said defendants W. D. Shawhan and Mary Shawhan, and each of them," for the sum claimed in the complaint. Judgment was thereupon entered against the defendants W. D. Shawhan and Mary Shawhan only, and from this judgment they have appealed. It was error in the court below to render judgment against them upon the facts found by it, without, at the same time, rendering judgment against their co-defendant, John E. Shawhan; and for this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.


Summaries of

Boys v. Shawhan

Supreme Court of California
Feb 24, 1891
88 Cal. 111 (Cal. 1891)
Case details for

Boys v. Shawhan

Case Details

Full title:H. R. A. BOYS, Respondent, v. W. D. SHAWHAN et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Feb 24, 1891

Citations

88 Cal. 111 (Cal. 1891)
25 P. 1063

Citing Cases

Silveira v. Iverson

The amended judgment is erroneous in not following the verdict; and if a joint judgment for damages is…

Cooper v. Cooper

e said defendant's return from Chicago, as aforesaid, she has said in the presence of and to said children,…