Smith v. Sparrow

Decided July 1, 1859

California Supreme Court · decided 1859-07-01

The complaint avers in substance that, in settlement of a transaction between the parties, plaintiff gave defendant a note. That, afterwards, discovering the amount was too much, in consequence of deceit practised by defendant, plaintiff induced defendant to make a new computation of interest, etc. and to agree to surrender the note upon payment by plaintiff of twenty-six hundred and fifty dollars, about one-half the note.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1925

2 state decisions

Relies on Lewis v. Tobias · James King of WM. v. Hall

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—

¶1Terry, C. J. concurring.

¶2We think the Court below did not err to the prejudice of the Appellant in dismissing his bill. The bill alleges merely that the plaintiff has a legal defense to a promissory note held by the defendant. In Lewis v. Tobias, (10 Cal. 577,) we held that equity will not interfere in such cases, unless under peculiar circumstances. We do not understand this to be a proceeding under the 527th Section of the Practice Act. If it were, it comes within the principle of King v. Hall & Huggins, (5 Cal. 82.) *598Sparrow having taken his proceedings in the Twelfth District Court, the plaintiff has a full opportunity of terminating the controversy by having the case tried.

¶3Judgment affirmed.