Youngs v. Bell

Decided April 15, 1854

California Supreme Court · decided 1854-04-15

The plaintiff sued upon several promissory notes, made by the defendants, to the order of Youngs & Howell, and alleged in the complaint to have been indorsed by Youngs & Howell to the plaintiff. The defendants, in their answer, denied the making of any such notes by them, and averred that the plaintiff was not the real owner of the notes, or the real party interested in the suit; that .said notes were merely indorsed to the plaintiff for the purpose of collection.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1871

1 state decisions

Relies on Grogan v. Ruckle

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Oh. J. Murray

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. J. Heydeneeldt concurred.

¶2It has been decided by this Court, that under the Act Begulating Proceedings in Civil Cases, a party is nol required to deny the genuineness of an indorsement under oath. (Grogan v. Ruckle, 1 Cal. 158, 193.) Under the authority of that decision, which we feel no disposition to question or disturb, the Court below erred in admitting the notes in evidence without proof of their indorsement. It is, however, contended that the answer admits their indorsement.

¶3The answer sets up several distinct causes of defense, and the appellant seems to have relied upon all of them in order to put the party to his proof, as he had a right to do under the statute, and was not concluded by one plea, so long as he had others which went to the whole action.

¶4Judgment reversed with costs, and new trial ordered.