Case Name: HEALEY v. NORTON
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1895-10-11
Citations: 5 Cal. Unrep. 171
Docket Number: No. 15,938
Parties: HEALEY v. NORTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 5
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
HEALEY v. NORTON.
No. 15,938;
October 11, 1895.
41 Pac. 1080.
Trial.—A Finding That All the Allegations of the complaint are true, and all the allegations of the answer untrue, is sufficient.
APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; J. M. Seawell, Judge.
Action by C. S. Healey against William H. Norton on promissory notes. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Ash & Mathews for appellant; James H. Creeley for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Action against the defendant, an indorser, on three promissory notes. The complaint was unverified, and the answer was a general denial, and that the notes had been theretofore transferred to one Cerini, who brought an action to recover thereon, which was dismissed; and the judgment in that action is pleaded in bar of this. The court made general findings that all the allegations of the complaint were true, and all the allegations of the answer untrue, and rendered judgment against defendant, from which, and an order denying him a new trial, he appeals.
There is no substantial merit in the appeal. The objection that the findings are insufficient to cover the issues is untenable (Pralus v. Mining Co., 35 Cal. 34; Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 184; Moore v. Waterworks Co., 68 Cal. 146, 8 Pac. 816); and the further objection that the findings are unsupported by the evidence equally so. The only particular suggested under the latter point is as to the sufficiency of the demand and notice, and of that there is no question. Judgment and order affirmed.