Legal Opinion

Harris v. the Munro Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 14, 1909No. Civ. No. 586Published

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.

Plaintiff took judgment against defendant by default upon a complaint containing two counts, each upon a promissory note. The note sued upon in the first count was past due, but the note sued upon in the second count was neither due when the complaint was filed nor when judgment was entered. The judgment was for the sum of the two notes, and is clearly erroneous and not supported by the pleadings. The note sued on in the second cause of action appearing by its terms as set forth in the count not to have been due when the action was commenced, such count stated no cause of action. (Harmon v.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hunt v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  2. Harmon v. AshmeadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882

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

Powered by the Exa API