Brown v. Weldon

Decided December 9, 1886

California Supreme Court · decided 1886-12-09

The action was brought on a promissory note. The complaint was unverified, and alleged that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $765 upon a promissory note, set forth in hæc verba, made by the defendant to Mrs. L. H. Brown, dated at Oakland on the 5th of January, 1878, and then and there delivered to her; that afterwards and before the note became due, Mrs. L. H. Brown, for a valuable consideration, sold and transferred it to the plaintiff, by an…

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1929

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-12-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McKinstry, J.

¶1The complaint is inartificially and loosely drawn. But we do not think it fails to state a cause of action. Nor is it subject to demurrer as ambiguous or uncertain. But it so far departs from established precedents, and so nearly approaches the line which separates pleading which may be tolerated though not approved from pleading radically defective, that we refuse to treat this appeal as frivolous.

¶2Defendant’s motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. The genuineness and due execution of the promissory note were admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 447.) Prima facie it was made when and where it bore date.

¶3The findings are sufficient.

¶4Judgment and order affirmed.

¶5Myrick, J., and Thornton, J, concurred.