Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Cal. 390

Hastings v. Dollarhide

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1861

California Supreme Court · decided 1861-07-01

The plaintiff demurred to the answer on the ground that it did not constitute a defense. Demurrer sustained, and, defendants declining to amend, final judgment entered for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

Relies on Bessie v. Earle

Decided 1861-07-01

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Field, C. J. concurring.

¶2This is an action upon a promissory note executed by the defendants to one Ysabel Armijo. The complaint sets forth a copy of the note, and avers an assignment of it by the payee to the plaintiff. The answer contains a general denial of the allegations of the complaint; and as the pleadings were not verified, this was sufficient to put the plaintiff upon proof of all the facts necessary to entitle him to recover, except the genuineness and due execution of the note. Judgment was rendered in his favor upon the pleadings alone; but the assignment being denied, it was necessary to prove it, and the judgment cannot therefore be maintained. The case stands precisely in the position that it would if the complaint contained no allegation upon the subject. Youngs v. Bell (4 Cal. 201) is directly in point.

¶3Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

/18/cal/390 · .json · Public domain