Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Cal. 598

Liening v. Gould

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1859

California Supreme Court · decided 1859-07-01

<p>Appeal from the County Court, Colusa County.</p> <p>Suit in a Justice’s Court by plaintiff, as Public Administrator, on a note of defendant to one Kurtz, deceased.</p> <p>The complaint sets out the note, avers plaintiff to be administrator in fact of the estate of John Kurtz, deceased, and that defendant has promised to pay, etc.</p> <p>Defendant answered by claiming that deceased bad made him a gift of the note, had agreed to extend the time of payment to the fall of 1858, this suit having been brought in May, and plead a set-off of thirty-five dollars.</p> <p>The Justice gave plaintiff judgment for the amount of the note and interest, less the thirty-five dollars. Defendant appealed to the County Court, where plaintiff had verdict and judgment for the whole note.</p> <p>Defendant asked the Court to instruct the jury “ as in case of nonsuit,” because plaintiff had failed to make profert of his letters of administration. The Court refused, and defendant excepted. Defendant appeals.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1934

6 state decisions

30185918601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—

¶1Terry, C. J. concurring.

¶2The points of Appellant are not well taken. Pleadings in Justices’ Courts are not held to much strictness. The complaint is substantially good. The plaintiff alleges that he is administrator in fact of the intestate. This is not denied in the answer. The failure to make the proof of the plaintiff’s title to sue, therefore, was no ground for a nonsuit.

¶3There was no consideration for the alleged agreement of extension ; paying a part of a note was not enough when all was due.

¶4The only matter in controversy really was as to the credit of thirty-five dollars claimed by defendant, as to which the proof was somewhat conflicting.

¶5We do not see that any statement appears so authenticated as to enable us to review the testimony; for there was no motion for a new trial; but we ghotild not, under the circumstances, be disposed to interfere if a motion had been made for a new trial, and a proper statement settled.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/13/cal/598 · .json · Public domain