Legal Opinion

Shain v. Belvin

California Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1889No. N0. 9995PublishedCited by 20 opinions

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

  1. Meeker v. DaltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Doyle v. FranklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Carpenter v. HewelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  4. McAbee v. RandallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Luse v. PetersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Huber v. ShedoudyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Shook v. BealsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  4. Shook v. BealsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  5. Sailors v. WoelfleTennessee Supreme Court · 1907

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API