Case ID: cal-unrep_4/html/0978-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HENSHAW, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUNTER v. HUBERT et al.
    No. 15,270;
    March 8, 1895.
    39 Pac. 534.
    Appeal.—Where Part of the Defendants have Previously Appealed, and the question has been decided adversely to them, such decision will not be disturbed upon appeal of other defendants, prosecuted on the same grounds.
    APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; J. C. B. Hebbard, Judge.
    Action by David Hunter against Charles Hubert and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    W. C. Burnett for appellants; Tilden & Tilden and H. J. Tilden for respondent.
   HENSHAW, J.

This is an action by plaintiff to recover from' defendants the amount due him for damages to his property by the widening of Dupont street. Judgment passed for plaintiff, and from it the defendants Hubert and Humphreys prosecute this appeal. The only proposition advanced by them is that the amended complaint does not state a cause of action. This point was made by other defendants in an appeal from this judgment, and decided adversely to the contention in Hunter v. Bryant, 98 Cal. 250, 33 Pac. 51, where this court said: “Conceding, for the purposes of the case, that the original complaint was lacking in essentials, still the amended complaint is unobjectionable, and that is the pleading upon which the judgment was rendered.” A review of the ease presents no grounds for a modification or reversal of this decision. The judgment is affirmed, and this order directed to be entered as of date May 1, 1893.

We concur: McFarland, J.; Temple, J.