Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Cal. 101

Buzzell v. Bennett

California Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1852

California Supreme Court · decided 1852-01-15

Buzzell filed his complaint against Bennett, stating that on the 28th of March, 1849, the defendant, and one Dennis Bennett, since deceased, being indebted to the plaintiff $410, for money loaned, executed their promissory note for the payment of $410, ten days after date, with interest at the rate of four dollars per'day, till paid, in gold dust, at $18 per ounce; which note was lost, and had never been transferred; and remained unpaid, &c.; and praying judgment for…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1899

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1852-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Justice Heykeneeldt

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court. This case was tried by agreement of parties, before Mr. Crane, sitting in place of the Judge of the Third Judicial District, and as Judge of the District Court. He erred materially, in deciding that the defendant could not avoid a promise to pay money, when such promise was made during infancy, unless he had dis-affirmed the contract after arriving at maturity.

¶2It is admitted by the respondent’s counsel that such is not the law; but he insists there was no proof of minority, and therefore the instructions given by the District Judge, could make no difference in the result. We are obliged to differ with the able counsel as to the construction of the evidence. We think there was enough testimony, admitted without objection, to make the charge relevant to the issue.

¶3The judgment is reversed; and the cause remanded for a new trial.

/2/cal/101 · .json · Public domain