Winans v. Hardenbergh
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. Winans & Hyer, in the Court below, sued Hardenbergh & Henarie on their promissory note. The defence, on the part of Hardenbergh, the only defendant who answered, was that the note had been given by his co-defendant, Henarie, after the dissolution of the copartnership.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. Winans & Hyer, in the Court below, sued Hardenbergh & Henarie on their promissory note. The defence, on the part of Hardenbergh, the only defendant who answered, was that the note had been given by his co-defendant, Henarie, after the dissolution of the copartnership. On the trial, the plaintiffs deeming the execution of the note admitted, introduced it in evidence, and after proving the amount of interest that had accrued thereon, rested their case. Whereupon defendants’ counsel moved the Court to instruct the jury as in case of…
1Opinion of the CourtTerry, C. J.
The only exception taken by appellant in the Court below, was to the refusal of the Court to instruct the jury, as in case of non-suit, upon the close of the plaintiff’s testimony. If this were an error, it was cured by the introduction of evidence on the part of defendants, which supplied every omission in plaintiff’s case, and conclusively established his right to recover. Smith v. Compton, Jan. T., 1856. The appeal is without merit, and was evidently taken for delay.
Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages, and costs.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Schlessinger v. MallardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Butters v. the Brawley StarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920