Court Opinion

ID: 9864536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:51:50.571407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:34.770011
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
Appellant petitions for a rehearing. The point especially urged is that the court erroneously held that the demurrer to the original complaint could not be considered as a demurrer to the amended complaint.
As shown in the opinion, heretofore filed, the judgment was entered six days after the amended complaint was filed. Appellant contends that he was entitled to ten days in which to demur or answer. It frequently happens that amendments are made by leave of court to conform to the evidence adduced at the trial. We do not understand that in such cases the opposing party can stand by without answering or demurring and, after the court has made its findings and entered its judgment, claim that he was deprived of his right to answer or demur. If he has objection to the amended complaint as allowed by the court he should seasonably make such objection *73known or he must be deemed to have waived such objection. In the present case he was duly served with a copy of the amended complaint which recites that it was filed “by leave of court first had and obtained.”
It is further contended that the amendments to the complaint were trivial and did not require a new demurrer. Citing Flood v. Templeton, 148 Cal. 374, 376, [83 Pac. 148], The amendment was, we think, something more than trivial and was to meet a very important issue in the case as to which there was evidence and a finding of the court. There was an amendment showing that the property was owned by Morris and his wife, whereas the original complaint alleged that Morris was the owner. There was also an amendment that, on October 10, 1910, Morris and his wife conveyed the premises to Hartley merely by way of correcting the deed made by Morris alone and with no intention that it should affect the mortgages given by Hartley. One of appellant’s contentions at the trial—strongly urged—was that this deed “absolutely released and discharged the two mortgages of Hartley to Morris (one for $750.00 and one for $850.00) and merged them in Hartley and had the operative effect of absolutely releasing and discharging said two mortgages of A. F. Hartley to Isidor F. Morris” and that appellant took the title freed from these mortgages. This issue was fully exploited at the trial and evidence admitted tending to show that the purpose of this deed of October 10th was well known to all the parties. In his motion to strike the amended complaint from the files appellant states, among other grounds, that it “radically changes and alters the alleged causes set forth in plaintiff’s original complaint on file herein”; that it “set forth matters and issues entirely new, wholly distinct and completely different from those embraced in the original complaint.” Appellant would hardly seem justified in now claiming that the amendments were trivial and such as were referred to in the case above cited. Besides, in the case cited the demurrer was general and the court stated that' the objections to the complaint could be made at any time. We still think that he should have renewed his demurrer if he intended to rely upon it.
Furthermore, we are of the opinion, if we are in error upon this point, that the matters called to the attention of the court by the special demurrer (it is not contended that there was *74any merit in the general demurrer) were gone into at the trial. Appellant was not misled by any of the defects in the pleading pointed out in the special demurrer, for the case seems to have been fairly tried on the merits. He was not prejudiced by the overruling of his demurrer. (Stein v. United Railroads, 159 Cal. 368, [113 Pac. 663].)
The petition is denied.