Court Opinion

ID: 9531217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:08:45.825023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:22.465980
License: Public Domain

DOOLING, J.
I concur. The main opinion does not in express terms meet the respondent’s argument that there was no sufficient affidavit of merits. An affidavit of merits was originally filed which omitted the classic phrase “that he has stated all of the facts of the case” to his counsel (25 Cal.Jur. 901-902) and substituted therefor the statement: “Said counsel is more familiar with the facts of this case than is affiant. ’ ’ An amendment to this affidavit was filed in which it is expressly stated “ (t)hat prior to the execution of said affidavit *500(the original affidavit of merits) ... I had fully and fairly stated the case and all the facts thereof of the above entitled action” to counsel. Talcing the affidavit as amended it is certainly sufficient. Counsel for respondent argues “It is clear . . . that if counsel is more familiar with the facts than the client, the latter does not know all of the facts and could not possibly state all of the facts to counsel. ” The argument is hyperteehnical. No litigant can state more than he knows and the classic recital of .the statement of “all of the facts of .the case” to counsel is necessarily subject to that implied qualification. Here we have also the additional fact recited that on the former appeal in an action grounded on the same basic, claim a judgment of nonsuit was affirmed, “ (a)nd when the facts of the case are averred, the question of whether or not the defendant has a meritorious defense may be left for the consideration of the court.” (25 Cal.Jur. 901; Westover v. Bridgford, 25 Cal.App. 548 [144 P. 313]; Carter v. Broder,. 50 Cal.App. 63 [194 P. 527].)
A petition for a rehearing was denied October 19, 1950, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court wüs.denied November 16,1950. Carter, J., voted for a hearing.