Court Opinion

ID: 9578413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:44:58.590763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:24:39.036576
License: Public Domain

NOURSE, P. J.
In their petition for rehearing respondents argue for the first time that their demurrer was good because appellant’s cross-complaint did not show that it arose out of the transaction sued on (Code Civ. Proc., *838§ 442). The record did not contain the original complaint and respondents now attempt to state its contents in their petition. When respondents dismissed, the only affirmative pleading remaining was the cross-complaint, and on appeal the sole ground of attack was that it did not allege fraud. It has been repeatedly held that a rehearing will not be granted for the purpose of considering a suggestion of error made for the first time'in the petition (2 Cal.Jur. 790; [Conner v. East Bay etc. Dist.], 8 Cal.App.2d 613, 619 [47 P.2d 774, 48 P.2d 982] ; [Ocean Park etc. Corp. v. City of Santa Monica], 40 Cal.App.2d 76, 87 [104 P.2d 668, 879]).
Rehearing denied.