Shain v. Belvin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
There is absolutely no merit in this appeal. The action was upon a promissory note. The *263defendant offered no evidence. The sole point made is, that the document headed “answer” contains a cross-complaint, and that inasmuch as the plaintiff filed no answer thereto, the defendant should have had judgment thereon by default. The answer contains several denials, and proceeds as follows: “And for a further and separate answer and defense to said action, defendant avers by way of cross-complaint,” in substance, that the note was without consideration; and then, “for a further and separate…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Meeker v. DaltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Doyle v. FranklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Carpenter v. HewelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- McAbee v. RandallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by20 opinions
- Luse v. PetersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Huber v. ShedoudyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Shook v. BealsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Shook v. BealsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Sailors v. WoelfleTennessee Supreme Court · 1907
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.