The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-01-13
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
SYLLIBI
Is. F., No. S64-Department One-Filed
1893

SYLLlBI.
g.. F.. No. S64-Department One-Filed
Dec. 20. 1881
California Improvement Company, re-
spondent; Reynolds, ct al. appellants
Street assessment. Reversed.
The specifications are but part of the
contract, and the averment that the plain
tiff entered into a contract with the SUI
perintendent of Streets for doing the
work according to the specifications
therein sufficiently alleges that step in
the proceedings to show its right to re-
ceive an assessment upon the due per-
Torrance of the contract.
The specifications for doing the work
provided that 1.-The rock to be used on
the surface of the roadway. shall be of
mesh, a smaller percentage OF hne ma
terial consequent upon the crushing of
the rock being allowable, the AMOUNT OF
tendent of Streets" Held, that by this
specification it was impossible for bid
lers to determine in advance the cost for
was therefore restrained. The vice Of the
contract being the same in character as
existed in Bolton vs.; Giileran. 10 Cal.,
case, the contract must be held invalid.
Is. F., No. sOS-Department One-Filed
Dec. 20, 1882
Lawrence MegginSOn, respondent, j. F.
Turner, appellant. Promissory notes. At
firmed.
the evidence upon an issue, the finding
of the trial court upon that issue will not
be disturbed upon appeal.
Is. F.. No. 1.s41-Department one-Filed
Dec 90 1882
Sophie Mcfarland, appellant; Lulie Carr
Holcomb, ct al. ETC., etc, respondents.
Action to establish claim against estate
Of defendants testator. Reversed.
Under our system of pleading, where
only the facts which constitute the cause
of action are to be alleged, it is not re-
,se-sxo ot< ton
or the promise when they are implied
as legal conclusion from the facts which
are alleged. A complaint which shows
that the plaintiff rendered services to the
defendant which were received by him in
person and were presumptively at his re-
quest, and of which he has enjoyed the
benefit, states facts from which the liza
bility of the defendant therefor is pre-
sumed and is good as against general
demurrer.
The failure to state the times at which
the services were rendered. or when the
claim for the items thereof accrued, or
the amount claimed for. each kind of
service, does not authorize demurrer
for uncertainty or ambiguity.
The statute Of limitations Is an afnrma-
tive defense, and. ii relied upon, must be
asserted by the dsfendant j. 1t cannot Pc
appears upon the face or the complaint
that the defense exists, and even in that
case it must be specifically stated in the
demurrer as the ground relied upon. to
show that no cause OF action exists
against the defendant from the averments
in the complaint.
Is. F., No. S5ADepartment One-Filed
Dec. 81, 1889
Phoenix Insurance Company, respond
emit; Robert ]. Hancock, appellant: Ac-
ton against heir to recover unpaid pre-
miums. Affirmed.
The phrase ESTATE of Samuel Hancock,
deceased used in the policies to describe
the party or parties insured, Is sufficient
to extend the protection of the insurance
to the interest of the heirs as well as
those Of the administrator in the proper
ty That the administrator declined any
interest in the policies taken out by the
heir-at-law does not impair their effect
as insurance upon. the heirs interest nor
effect his liability for the premium.
Is. F., No. 15S9-Department One-Filed
Dec. % 1881
People, etc., appellant, City OF Oakland:
respondent. Action for usurpation of
franchise. Motion to dismiss appeal de-
MED.
w. of Part III. of the Code. and the sec
tions under which new trials are author
lied are in the same part OF the code.
and contain no Limitations respecting the
character of the action in which they
are to be granted. New trials have fire.
ouent1y been granted in actions under
t1,is socfion Soc PeODle VS.. Suffer Street