Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Dunlap
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This is an appeal from the judgment, and is taken by what is commonly called the “new method.”
The plaintiff rested its ease upon the pleadings. The promissory note, upon which the action was founded, was not offered in evidence; neither was any evidence of its nonpayment given. The execution of the note was not denied in the answer of the defendants; consequently no evidence of its due execution was necessary. Nor was it necessary to introduce the note in evidence to prove its nonpayment. The allegation of nonpayment is a negative allegation, which plaintiff was not required to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Melone v. RuffinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Stroud v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Hobson v. HassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Fulton v. LoughlinIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Kelly v. TheissAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Thomas v. FursmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Albergo v. GigliottiUtah Supreme Court · 1938
- Dyer v. MinturnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Atkinson v. AdkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- First National Bank of Escondido v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.