Legal Opinion

Conner v. Hutchinson

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1861PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from the Sixth District. Plaintiff sued on a note for three hundred and fifty dollars with interest. Defendant answered that at the time of the commencement of the suit plaintiff was, and still is indebted to defendant in the sum of five hundred dollars, for work and labor, etc., and for money paid out and expended, and set this up as a counter claim, asking judgment for the difference.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Sixth District. Plaintiff sued on a note for three hundred and fifty dollars with interest. Defendant answered that at the time of the commencement of the suit plaintiff was, and still is indebted to defendant in the sum of five hundred dollars, for work and labor, etc., and for money paid out and expended, and set this up as a counter claim, asking judgment for the difference. Plaintiff gave defendant the following notice : “ I demand of you a copy of the account to which you allude in your answer, and claim to be an offset in this cause.” Whereupon defendant furnished, in…

1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.

Field, C. J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.

The order requiring a further account in pursuance of the fifty-sixth section of the Practice Act, is defective and insufficient. The particulars, in reference to which a further specification was required, should have been stated in the order. This was not done ; and it was error to preclude the defendant from giving evidence of the account set up in the answer. There is also another reason for holding that the exclusion of this evidence was improper. If the *282account, as delivered, was not satisfactory, and the plaintiff intended to object to the…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Isham v. ParkerWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Ames v. BellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  4. Benson v. Superior Court of Napa CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Brooks v. International Shoe Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1918

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API