McLaughlin v. Clausen
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Walter Van Dyke, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Belcher, C.
This is an action upon a promissory note for four hundred dollars, executed by the defendant to the plaintiff on December 27,1887, and payable four months after date, with interest.
The complaint was filed October 27, 1888. The answer admitted the making of the note, and that plaintiff was the owner and holder thereof, and that no part of the same had been paid. It then sets up facts which it was claimed constituted a defense to the action.
The plaintiff demurred to the answer upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense, and the demurrer was…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Smith v. WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Grigsby v. Napa CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Borkheim v. North British & Mercantile Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1869
- Kubli v. HawkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Johnson v. SweeneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Webster v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Romero v. SnyderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Fresno City High School District v. DillonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- People Ex Rel. Stone v. JefferdsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Cathcart v. GregoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.