Jurisdictional Facts

"In a court of limited and special jurisdiction every fact essential to confer the jurisdiction must be alleged; but in courts of general jurisdiction the cause of action only need be stated." Doll v. Feller (1860), 16 C. 432; Schwartz, Inc. v. Burnett Pharmacy (1931), 112 C.A. Supp. 781, 295 P. 508.

"Since the superior court is presumed to have jurisdiction over a particular cause, it is not necessary to plead affirmatively the facts showing jurisdiction but lack of jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown." Cheney v. Trauzettel (1937) 9 C.2d 158, 69 P.2d 382, distinguished and followed in Altman v. McCollum (1951),
107 C.A.2d Supp. 847, 236 P.2d 914; explained in Seidell v. Anglo- California Trust Co. (1942), 55 C.A.2d 913, 132 P.2d 12; followed in Higgins v. Coyne (1946), 75 C.A.2d 69, 170 P.2d 25.

"It is essential to jurisdiction that there be some proper application invoking judicial power of court in respect to matters sought to be litigated." Associated Oil Co. v. Mullin (1930), 294 P. 421, 110 C.A. 385.

Particular Averments

"One may not by the mere device of an allegation in a pleading create a legal duty that otherwise does not exist." Pascoe v. Southern California Edison Co. (1951), 102 C.A.2d 254, 227 P.2d 555.

"A party who brings himself within an exception to a general rule must state facts which take his case out of the general rule and within the exception." Senter v. Davis (1869), 38 C. 450; San Francisco Savings Union v. Reclamation District No. 124 (1904), 144 C. 639, 79 P. 374; Bird v. Utica Gold Mtn. Co. (1906), 2 C.A. 674, 677, 84 P. 256.

"One may not by the mere device of an allegation in a pleading create a legal duty that otherwise does not exist." Pascoe v. Southern California Edison Co. (1951), 102 C.A.2d 254, 227 P.2d 555.

Performance of Conditions in Contract Actions

"In action for specific performance of contract it must be made to appear by affirmative allegations that consideration for contract was adequate and it is insufficient merely to state legal conclusions of such adequacy." Boro v. Ruzich (1943), 58 C.A.2d 535, 137 P.2d 51.

"A pleader is bound by the interpretation of a contract adopted by him and set forth in his pleading." Tennant v. Wilde (1929), 98 C.A. 437, 277 P. 137.

"The pleader is bound by the interpretation adopted by him and set forth in his pleading." White v. San Diego (1932), 126 C.A. 501, 14 P.2d 1062.

"Performance of condition precedent upon which recovery depends must be alleged." Eddy v. Hickman (1934), 136 C.A. 103, 28 P.2d 66; Mitchell v. Green (1931), 110 C.A. 259, 293 P 879.

"In equitable action, performance or willingness to perform must be alleged." Holstrom v. Mullen (1927), 84 C.A. 1, 257 P. 545.

"Where a nonperformance of a duty imposed by statute is relied upon as the gravaman of the action, the conditions in view of which the duty is to be performed, must be alleged." Fontaine v. Southern Pacific Co. (1880), 54 C. 645.

"Facts, not mere conclusions, should be alleged to establish right to specific performance of contract." Foley v. Cowan (1947), 80 C.A.2d 70, 181 P.2d 410.

"A count in a complaint which does not allege any assignment or transfer to the plaintiff of the property or rights of action of the person whose claims to a right of action against the defendants are set forth in such count, is insufficient." Lapique v. Denis (1914), 23 C.A. 683, 139 P. 237.

"The complaint, on its face, must show that the plaintiff has the better right." Rogers v. Shannon (1877), 52 C. 99.

Complaint based on statute

"[If a declaration on a contract action is founded on a statute], the act or offense must be shown to within its provisions, and the defendant excluded from the operation of any exception in its enacting clause. An exception in the body of the act is a matter of defense only." Shipman's Common Law Pleading
(1923), p. 264.

"When a pleader wishes to avail himself of a statutory privilege, or right given by particular facts, he must show the facts; those facts which the statute requires as the foundation of the right must be stated in the complaint." Dye v. Dye (1858), 11 C. 163.

"Where a right is given to a particular class of individuals the pleadings in these special cases should show that the persons who seek to avail themselves of the special privileges are within the class thus privileged." Lee Doon v. Tesh (1885), 68 C. 43, 6 P. 97, 8 P. 621.

"Where a pleader wishes to avail himself of a statutory privilege or right given by particular privilege or right by particular facts, he must state in his complaint the facts upon which the right is founded." San Luis Obispo County v. Hendricks (1886), 71 C. 242, 11 P. 682.

"When any qualification or exception is stated in the enacting clause of a statute, the declaration or plea founded upon it must allege the facts which are necessary to bring the case within the qualification, or to exclude it from the exception." San Francisco Savings Union v. Reclamation District No. 124 (1924), 144 C. 639, 79 P. 374.

"When reliance is had upon a right or status created by statuted the pleader must state all the facts necessary to bring the case within the statute." Nielson v. Gross (1911), 17 C.A. 74, 118 P. 725.

"In statutory actions the party suing must bring himself strictly within the statutory requirements necessary to confer the right, and this must appear in the complaint." McLain v. Llewellyn Iron Works (1922), 56 C.A. 60, 204 P. 869.

"Where an action is founded on a statutory right or a right deducible wholly from statute, the plaintiff must, by his complaint, bring himself squarely and clearly within the terms or provisions of the statute upon which he relies or must rely to state a cause of action." Bailey Trading Co. v. Levy (1925), 72 C.A. 339, 237 P. 408.

"Where a right is purely statutory and is granted upon conditions, one who seeks to enforce the right must by allegation and proof clearly bring himself within the conditions." Johnson v. Glendale (1936), 12 C.A.2d 389, 55 P.2d 580, distinguished in Shea v. San Bernardino (1936), 7 C.2d 688, 62 P.2d 365; followed in Wicklund v. Plymouth Elementary School District (1940), 37 C.A.2d 252, 99 P.2d 314; questioned in Farrell v. Placer County (1944), 23 C.2d 624, 145 P.2d 570, 153 A.L.R. 323, Schulstad v. San Francisco (1946), 74 C.A.2d 105, 168 P.2d 68.

"If plaintiff seeks to fasten liability upon defendant through medium of a particular statute, he must allege sufficient facts to bring defendant within scope of that statute and unless he does so defendant is not called upon to plead facts to take him out of operation of statute." Watts v. Currie (1940), 38 C.A.2d 615, 101
P.2d 764.

"In a statutory action a compliance with all the provisions conferring the right must be alleged." Paden v. Goldbaum (1894), 4 C.U. 767, 37 P.2d 759.

"When a pleader wishes to avail himself of a statutory privilege or right given by particular facts he must show the facts." Renton Estate (1892), 3 Cof. 519.

"A person pleading a right derived from a statute or a statutory privilege must allege the facts which the statute requires as the foundation of his right." Renton Estate (1892), 3 Cof. 519.

In General

Facts Constituting cause of action

"Every fact which, if controverted, plaintiff must prove to maintain his action must be stated in the complaint." Jerome v. Stebbins (1859), 14 C. 457; Green v. Palmer (1860), 15 C. 411, 76 Am. Sec. 492; Johnson v. Santa Clara County (1865), 28 C. 545.

"The complaint, on its face, must show that the plaintiff has the better right." Rogers v. Shannon (1877), 52 C. 99.

"Complaint, to be sufficient, must contain a statement of facts which, without the aid of other facts not stated shows a complete cause of action." Going v. Didwiddle (1890), 86 C. 633, 25 P. 129.

"Pleadings should set forth facts, and not merely the opinions of parties." Snow v. Halstead (1851), 1 C. 359.

"A complaint must contain a statement of facts showing the jurisdiction of the court, ownership of a right by plaintiff, violation of that right by the defendant, injury resulting to plaintiff by such violation, justification for equitable relief where that is sought, and a demand for relief." Pierce v. Wagner, 134 F.2d. 958.

"Essential facts on which legal points in controversy depend, should be pleaded clearly and precisely, so that nothing is left for court to surmise." Gates v. Lane (1872), 44 C. 392.

"The test of the materiality of an averment in a pleading is this: Could the averment be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient?" Whitwell v. Thomas (1858), 9 C. 499.

"In pleading, the essential facts on which a determination of the controversy depends should be stated with clearness and precision so that nothing is left to surmise." Bernstein v. Fuller (1950), 98 C.A.2d 441, 220 P.2d 558.

"The "facts" which the court is to find and the "facts" which a pleader is to state lie in the same plane - that is, in both connections, "facts" are to be stated according to their legal effect." Hihn v. Peck (1866), 30 C. 280.

"A plaintiff must set forth in his complaint the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with sufficient clarity and particularity that defendant may be apprised of nature, source and extent of his cause of action." Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum (1948), 86 C.A.2d 750, 195 P.2d 492.

"In general, matters of substance must be alleged in direct terms, and not by way of recital or reference." Silvers v. Grossman (1920), 183 C. 693, 192 P. 534; Reid v. Kerr (1923), 64 C.A. 117, 220 P. 688.

"A fact which constitutes an essential element of a cause of action cannot be left to inference." Roberts v. Roberts, 81 C.A.2d 871, 185 P.2d 381.

"Material facts must be alleged directly and not by way of recital." Vilardo v. Sacramento County (1942), 54 C.A.2d 413, 129 P.2d 165.

"Material allegations must be distinctly stated in complaint." Goland v. Peter Nolan & Co. (1934), 33 P.2d 688, subsequent opinion 38 P.2d 783, 2 C.2d 96.

"Matters of substance must be presented by direct averment and not by way of recital." Stefani v. Southern Pacific Co. (1932), 119 C.A. 69, 5 P.2d 946.

"A pleading which leaves essential facts to inference or argument is bad." Ahlers. v. Smiley (1909), 11 C.A.343, 104 P. 997.

"The forms alone of the several actions have been abolished by the statute. The substantial allegations of the complaint in a given case must be the same under our practice act as at common law." Miller v. Van Tassel (1864), 24 C. 459.

"A pleading cannot be aided by reason of facts not averred." San Diego County v. Utt (1916), 173 C. 554, 160 P. 657.

"Facts necessary to a cause of action but not alleged must be taken as having no existence." Frace v. Long Beach City High School Dist. (1943), 137 P.2d 60, 58 C.A.2d 566.

"A fact necessary to pleader's cause of action, if not pleaded, must be taken as having no existence." Feldesman v. McGovern (1941), 44 C.A.2d 566.

"When pleading is silent as to material dates, or does not clearly state facts relied on, it must be presumed that statement thereof would weaken pleader's case." Whittemore v. Davis (1931), 112 C.A. 702, 297 P. 640.

"Material matters in pleadings must be distinctly stated in ordinary and concise language." Brown v. Sweet (1928), 95 C.A. 117, 272 P. 614.

"Facts contained in public records should be alleged in pleading when they constitute necessary elements of good cause of action." Gray v. White (1935), 5 C.A.2d 463, 43 P.2d 318.

"When facts are available from public records, it is ordinarily improper to allege such facts on mere information and belief." People v. Birch Securities Co. (1948), 196 P.2d 143, 86 C.A.2d 703, cert. denied Birch Securities Co. v. People of State of California, 69 S.Ct. 745, 336 U.S. 936, 93 L.Ed. 1095.

Conclusions

"A mere conclusion of a pleader cannot be availed of to initiate and invite an issue of fact." Hatfield v. Peoples Water Co. (1914), 25 C.A. 711, 145 P. 164.

"One may not by the mere device of an allegation in a pleading create a legal duty that otherwise does not exist." Pascoe v. Southern California Edison Co. (1951), 102 C.A.2d 254, 227 P.2d 555.

"Allegations of legal conclusions cannot be permitted to supply essential allegations of fact." Bailes v. Keck (1927), 200 C. 697, 254 P. 573, 51 A.L.R. 930.

"Pleadings should allege facts, and not mere conclusions of law." Bailes v. Keck (1927), 200 C. 697, 254 P. 573, 51 A.L.R. 930.

"A pleading must allege facts and not conclusions, and conclusions of law are not admitted by demurrer." Vilardo v. Sacramento County (1942), 54 C.A.2d 413, 129 P.2d 165.

"Facts, not mere conclusions, should be alleged to establish right to specific performance of contract." Foley v. Cowan (1947), 80 C.A.2d 70, 181 P.2d 410.

"Allegation of conclusion of law tenders no issue." California Western Holding Co. v. Merrill (1935), 7 C.A.2d 131, 46 P.2d 175.

"Conclusions of law in a pleading are disregarded." Koehler v. Coronado (1927), 83 C.A. 648, 257 P. 187.