TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Himmelmann v. Spanagel

A. HIMMELMANN v. GEO SPANAGELs.

Himmelmann v. Spanagel, 39 Cal. 401 (1870)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1870
Docket
No. 1,913
Judges
Rhodes
Citations
39 Cal. 401
Syllabus
Pbactice— Objections. — Objections which go to the sufficiency of the statement of facts contained in the complaint, but not to the sufficiency of the facts themselves, cannot he entertained, unless presented by special demurrer. Idem.—Default. — The default of a defendant amounts to an admission of the facts stated in the complaint, and leaves no issue between him and the plaintiff. Idem.—Findings.—Judgment.—A defendant in default is unaffected by the findings, and has no grounds of complaint if the judgment is not sustained by or is repugnant thereto.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth District, City and County of San Francisco. The appellants were sued jointly with other persons. The other facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rhodes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rhodes, C. J.,

delivered the. opinion of the Court:

The appellants, Roper and Reay, entered their appearance in the action, and not having demurred or answered, their default was entered. Their objections to the complaint go to the sufficiency of the statement of the facts, but not to the sufficiency of the facts themselves, and cannot be entertained unless presented by special demurrer. Their default amounting to an admission of the facts stated in the complaint, there was no issue as between them and the plaintiff. They are, therefore, unaffected by the findings, and have no cause to complain that the judgment is not sustained by, or is repugnant to, the findings.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1885–1886: 11897–1898: 11907–1908: 218852026peak 1907 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mullally v. Townsend50 P. 1066 (Cal. 1897)
  2. Tehama County v. Bryan8 P. 673 (Cal. 1885)
  3. Madison v. Octave Oil Co.99 P. 176 (Cal. 1908)
  4. The Union Ice Co. v. Doyle92 P. 112 (Cal. Ct. App. 1907)

Most recent

  1. Madison v. Octave Oil Co.99 P. 176 (Cal. 1908)
  2. The Union Ice Co. v. Doyle92 P. 112 (Cal. Ct. App. 1907)
  3. Mullally v. Townsend50 P. 1066 (Cal. 1897)
  4. Tehama County v. Bryan8 P. 673 (Cal. 1885)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list