Court Opinion

ID: 9864664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:47:14.819828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:47.645766
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
Presenting their petition for a rehearing, appellants challenge the.statement made in the opinion filed by this court that all of the grounds of appeal presented by them depend upon the contents of the reporter’s transcript. They insist that there are errors on the face of the judgment-roll, which are mentioned on pages 31 to 34 of their brief, which they say that we have overlooked. It is true that they were overlooked, but by a very excusable inadvertence. Under the general heading “Points of Law,” the brief contains a long list of such points, most of them not accompanied by any attempt to apply them to the ease at bar. The items now designated by petitioners were buried in the mass of print, like needles in a haystack.
Now, considering the points on their merits: ' [3] Appellants claim that the complaint in intervention did not state a cause of action because it shows on its face that it is barred. This defense was not made either by demurrer or answer. Unless such defense is in some manner asserted in the trial court, it is waived. (Bliss v. Sneath, 119 Cal. 526, [51 Pac. 848].) Counsel for appellants assert that such defense was made in their answer to the complaint in intervention. The clerk’s transcript' does not contain any answer by appellants to the complaint in intervention. It is next suggested by counsel that the answer of defendant was a sham. Inspection of the' answer shows that it was made in the usual direct form and not for want of information ór belief, and it met the issues tendered. Counsel say that “the answer does not deny that defendant had a mortgage to F. C. McDowell.” The answer of the defendant denied that the said note and mortgage were made in favor of F. C. McDowell, and alleged that, on the contrary, they were executed in favor of Hattie N. McDowell. The ' findings follow the answer in the determination of this matter. There are two or three other items directed to alleged errors shown by the judgment-roll, but as they have no greater merit than those already discussed, a further statement of them would be useless.
*405'Concerning the matters which, were discussed in the original opinion filed herein, we are satisfied with the decision as made.
The petition for a rehearing is denied.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on August 30, 1920.
All the Justices concurred, except Shaw, J., and Sloane, J., -who were absent.