Best v. Burch
| Decision Date | 13 May 1955 |
| Citation | 283 P.2d 262,132 Cal.App.2d 859 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Ervin S. BEST and Charles Baer, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Marble E. BURCH, Defendant and Appellant. Marble E. BURCH, Cross-Complainant, v. Ervin S. BEST and Charles Baer, Cross-Defendants. Civ. 16301. |
Cresswell & Davis, Oakland, for appellant.
Ervin S. Best, Charles Baer, San Francisco, respondents in pro. per.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs and respondents on March 5, 1951, decreeing that plaintiffs recover from defendant the sum of $985.05 and costs.
Plaintiffs and respondents Ervin S. Best and Charles Baer, attorneys, instituted suit in the Municipal Court against Marble E. Burch for recovery of the balance due on a promissory note which had been executed in payment for legal services rendered to appellant by respondents. Defendant by his verified answer admitted execution and delivery of the note.
Appellant filed an answer, counterclaims and cross-complaint seeking recovery of sums in excess of the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court, which resulted in the transfer of the case to the Superior Court.
A hearing was held on respondents' demurrer to the answer and cross-complaint, and on December 9, 1953, a minute order was made granting the motion to strike as to certain paragraphs of the answer, sustaining the demurrer to the third defense with 10 days to amend, to the fourth defense without leave to amend. The demurrer to the cross-complaint was overruled. On December 21, 1953, appellant filed a motion for a change of venue asking that the case be transferred to the Superior Court of Trinity County, which motion was denied on December 29, 1953. To the first amended answer, counterclaim and cross-complaint respondents filed a motion to strike and a demurrer. On January 25, 1954, the court granted the motion to strike out certain paragraphs of the first amended answer and the entire cross-complaint. Demurrer to the third answer and counterclaim was sustained with 10 days to amend. Appellant failed to amend his third answer.
On February 17, 1954, respondents filed their notice of motion for summary judgment supported by affidavit. Appellant filed no affidavit in opposition to said motion and made no appearance in connection therewith. The motion was therefore granted after a hearing at which respondents argued in propria persona.
Appellant contends on this appeal that the court erred in refusing to grant his motion for change of venue. The appeal herein is solely from the summary judgment. No appeal was taken from the order denying a change of venue. Section 963(2), Code of Civil Procedure, makes this an appealable order. Such order is therefore not reviewable on an appeal from the judgment. Code of Civ.Proc., § 956; Chard v. O'Connell, 48 Cal.App.2d 475, 476, 120 P.2d 125.
The remainder of appellant's brief is devoted to arguments that the court committed error in striking certain paragraphs of the second answer and defense and the first amended answer, counterclaims and cross-complaint, as well as in sustaining the general demurrer to appellant's third answer in the first amended answer. These questions likewise, are not reviewable on this appeal. It is well settled in this state that any question regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings cannot be reviewed on an appeal from a summary judgment. It is said in Kelly v. Liddicoat, 35 Cal.App.2d 559, 96 P.2d 186, 187, a case in which this subject is exhaustively considered, that 'Ordinarily the only question presented upon an appeal from a summary judgment under section 437c is whether or not the trial court abused its discretion.' In that case appellants, as here, attacked the judgment on the ground that the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to their third amended answer. The court points out that the purpose of section 437c is to eliminate all issues which have no basis in fact irrespective of how well they may be pleaded. Therefore an answer may be stricken out although it states a perfect defense if defendant does not by his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
de Echeguren v. de Echeguren
...(1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 559, 565, 96 P.2d 186; Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 562-563, 277 P.2d 464; Best v. Burch (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 859, 861, 283 P.2d 262; and Coyne v. Krempels, supra, 36 Cal.2d 257, 261-263, 223 P.2d 244. They, however, refrain from furnishing us with ......
-
Rodes v. Shannon
...action. The answer is that the sufficiency of the pleadings cannot be reviewed on an appeal from a summary judgment. Best v. Burch, 132 Cal.App.2d 859, 861, 283 P.2d 262.' To the same effect is Best v. Burch, 132 Cal.App.2d 859, at page 861, 283 P.2d 262, 263, wherein the court said: 'The r......
-
House v. Lala
...action. The answer is that the sufficiency of the pleadings cannot be reviewed on an appeal from a summary judgment. Best v. Burch, 132 Cal.App.2d 859, 861, 283 P.2d 262. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further FOX, P. J., and ASHBURN, J., concur. ...
-
Murphy v. Kelly
...problem here involved, namely, whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in granting the summary judgment. Best v. Burch, 132 Cal.App.2d 859, 283 P.2d 262; Kelly v. Liddicoat, 35 Cal.App.2d 559, 560, 96 P.2d 186; Bank of America, etc. v. Oil Well S. Co., 12 Cal.App.2d 265, 270, 5......