Case Name: GREENFIELD v. STEAMER GUNNELL
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1856
Citations: 6 Cal. 67
Docket Number: 
Parties: GREENFIELD v. STEAMER GUNNELL.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 67–68

Head Matter:
GREENFIELD v. STEAMER GUNNELL.
The objection to the want of verification of a complaint, where verification is required by statute, must be taken either before answer or with the answer.
Where a complaint, though defective, states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the objections to it should be taken by demurrer.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin.
The plaintiff filed his complaint, the body of which is in these words : “E. G. Greenfield, a citizen of-said county, complains of the steamer C. W. Gunnell, for that said steamer is justly indebted to him in the sum of §1118 87, for work and labor performed and materials furnished in the construction, repair, and refitting said boat in the years 1853 and ’54. That said sum is wholly due and unpaid. Wherefore he prays that he have judgment against said steamer for said sum of §1118 87 and interest and costs, and that the process of attachment may issue to secure the payment of any judgment he may recover herein.” The complaint is signed by plaintiff’s attorneys, but is not verified.
J. V. Woag & Co., on behalf of the defendant, filed an answer, and subsequently moved to dismiss the action: 1st. Because it does not
appear by the complaint filed, that this Court has any jurisdiction herein. 2d. Because the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 3d. Because the complaint filed herein is not verified by the oath of the plaintiff, or any one else.
The Court overruled the motion; the cause was tried before a jury, who found a verdict for plaintiff for §935. Defendant appealed.
S. Booker for Appellants.
D. W. Perley for Respondents.
The only ground taken by appellants which could be maintained, is the want of verification of the complaint, and that was waived by filing the answer. Laimbeer v. Allen, 2 Sand., 648; 3 How. Pr. R., 64; 4 do. 126, 153; 3 Code R., 151; Broadway Bank v. Danforth, 7 How. Pr. R., 264.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
The objection to the want of verification to the declaration should have been made either before answer or with the answer. It comes too late after answer.
See Tooms v. Randall 3 Cal. R., 438.
The other objections should have been taken by demurrer. The declaration, although defective, alleges enough to free it from the charge of not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Judgment affirmed.