Curtiss v. Sprague
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, County of Santa Barbara. The action was brought on a promissory note given by Thomas Sprague to Thomas Dennis, or order, on the 19th day of January, 1865, and payable on the 1st day of November following. The note was endorsed by the defendant Huse. Dennis, the payee, transferred the note to the plaintiff after it fell due.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, County of Santa Barbara. The action was brought on a promissory note given by Thomas Sprague to Thomas Dennis, or order, on the 19th day of January, 1865, and payable on the 1st day of November following. The note was endorsed by the defendant Huse. Dennis, the payee, transferred the note to the plaintiff after it fell due. The defendants set up, in their answer, by way of counter-claim, the following demand of Huse against Dennis: “Santa Barbara, December 15th, 1862. “ I, Thomas Dennis, defendant in the suit of Lewis T. Burton v.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:
The counter-claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and, under the provisions of the Practice Act, the plaintiff must be considered to have pleaded the statute by way of replication to the counter-claim.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.
Neither Mr. Justice Crockett nor Mr. Justice Rhodes expressed an opinion.
2Cited by20 opinions
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Moore v. CoppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Kelley v. Hodge Transportation SystemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Jones v. MortimerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Janes v. ThrockmortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.