Case ID: cal_65/html/0385-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 8,171.
    Department Two.
    July 18, 1884.]
    JAMES F. CUNNINGHAM, Respondent, v. HENRY SKINNER, Appellant.
    Pleading — Claim and Delivery—Denials. — In an action to recover possession of personal property, a denial in the answer that the plaintiff is the owner, and the further allegation that the defendant “has not sufficient information or belief to enable him to answer ” the allegation of plaintiff that he is entitled to the possession of the property, “ and on that ground he denies the same,” is sufficient to put in issue the ownership and right of possession of plaintiff.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Santa Cruz.
    . The action was to recover the possession of personal property. The complaint was in the usual form, alleging ownership and right of possession. The averments of the answer are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. A general demurrer to the answer was sustained.
    
      Ferdinand J. McCann, for Appellant.
    
      J. M. Lesser, for Respondent.
   The Court.

The denial that the plaintiff is the owner of the personal property described in the complaint, and the allegation that the defendant “has not sufficient information or belief upon the subject to enable him to answer” the allegation of the plaintiff that he is entitled to the possession of said property, “ and on that ground he (defendant) denies the same,” is sufficient to put in issue the allegation of the plaintiff that he is the owner, and entitled to the possession of said property; and the court erred in holding on the trial that it was not. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437.) Judgment reversed.

Hearing in Bank denied.