Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Stockton Lumber Co. v. Blodgett 3 Cal. App. 94

← Cases

Stockton Lumber Co. v. Blodgett

3 Cal. App. 94 Court Second Appellate District. Decision date 1906-02-14 Docket Civ. No. 223 English

Delivered by SMITH, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 94
[Civ. No. 223.
Second Appellate District.
February 14, 1906.]
STOCKTON LUMBER COMPANY, Respondent, v. H. A. BLODGETT, Appellant.

Headnote

Corporation—Manager is Officer—Verification of Complaint.—The manager of a corporation is an officer thereof, and as such authorized to verify a complaint in an action by the corporation.
Id.—Unverified Answer—Judgment on Pleadings.-—Where an unverified answer is filed to a verified complaint, denying generally each and every allegation of the complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the pleadings, and is not limited to striking the insufficient answer from the files.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Paul W. Bennett, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Smith & Allen, for Appellant.
Budd & Thompson, and F. D. McClure, for Respondent.

This is a suit on a promissory note made by the defendant to the plaintiff. The note is set out at length in the complaint, and the complaint is verified by Fyfe, who, it is said in the affidavit, “is manager of the corporation plaintiff,” etc. The defendant filed an unverified answer, denying generally each and every allegation of the complaint, and upon

p. 95
motion of the plaintiff judgment was entered against him on the pleadings for the amount of the note and interest, from which judgment the defendant appeals. There is no bill of exceptions.

The grounds urged by appellant for reversal are: That the complaint was not verified “by an officer” of the corporation, and 'that the proper remedy for the plaintiff in the premises was to strike out the insufficient answer. But we have no doubt that the manager of a corporation is an officer thereof. Nor, with regard to the other point, do we see any reason for the practice recommended by appellant’s counsel. (Hearst v. Hart, 128 Cal. 327 , [ 60 Pac. 86 ].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Gray, P. J., and Allen, J., concurred.

Cases cited