Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MORRIS v. HARRIS.
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment for defendant. The complaint stated a common count for money had and received. It alleged that defendant received $3,900 as agent for, and for the use and benefit of plaintiff which sum, being previously demanded, has not been paid. No other cause of action is alleged. The answer is a general denial.
The matter came on for trial and almost immediately plaintiff offered a written contract which (according to the trial judge) contained a clause for liquidated damages. The court thereupon refused to admit the contract into evidence. Plaintiff was denied leave to amend the complaint over objection that this would entirely change the cause of action from one on a common count to one on a contract for liquidated damages. The contract is not in the record nor before this court. Plaintiff and defendant both then rested and judgment was entered for defendant.
No offer of proof was made which would indicate how or why the particular contract would establish some fact that would lead to a situation where money was had and received; hence it does not appear how this contract would be relevant to the ultimate issue.
It is incumbent on appellant to present a record which affirmatively shows error. Vaughn v. Jones, 31 Cal.2d 586, 601, 191 P.2d 432; Utz v. Aureguy, 109 Cal.App.2d 803, 807, 241 P.2d 639; Dallman Supply Co. v. Smith-Blair, Inc., 103 Cal.App.2d 129, 134, 228 P.2d 886; Wyman v. Municipal Court, 102 Cal.App.2d 738, 741, 228 P.2d 89, 229 P.2d 491; Palpar, Inc., v. Thayer, 83 Cal.App.2d 809, 811, 189 P.2d 752. No error is shown by the record presented.
Judgment affirmed.
DOOLING, Justice.
NOURSE, P. J., and GOODELL, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Civ. 15386.
Decided: May 25, 1953
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)