Fay v. Cobb
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ §3000. San Francisco, August 28, 1874. “Sixty days after date, without grace, I promise to pay to Wm.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “ §3000. San Francisco, August 28, 1874. “Sixty days after date, without grace, I promise to pay to Wm. H. Patterson or order the sum of three thousand dollars, payable only in gold coin of the government of the United States, for value received, with interest thereon, in like gold coin, at the rate of two per cent, per month from maturity until paid. M. Gr. Cobb.” The complaint averred that Cobb delivered the note to Patterson and that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The court below struck out the general denial of Patterson as being “ sham,” and directed judgment to be entered for the plaintiff.
While it is true that a general denial, under the Code, if falsely interposed, or the general issue at common law, if falsely pleaded, may alike be characterized as “sham,” neither of these could be disposed of by the Court in a summary way, nor could an inquiry, in advance of the trial, be entertained as to the good faith of defendant in pleading such defenses.
The defendant has the right to put the plaintiff to the proof of his demand, and to require…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Green v. Hughitt School Twp.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Samuel Cupples Wooden Ware Co. v. JensenSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1886
- Loranger v. Big Missouri Mining Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- In re BartholomewSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
- Kline v. HarrisNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915