Barringer v. Warden
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Ninth District, County of Siskiyou. This was an action to recover a sum of money. The facts, as alleged in the complaint, are as follow : Some time in the year 1856, J. A. Ripson sold to Matthias Woolsey an undivided one-sixth interest in a mining claim, and placed Woolsey in possession.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Ninth District, County of Siskiyou. This was an action to recover a sum of money. The facts, as alleged in the complaint, are as follow : Some time in the year 1856, J. A. Ripson sold to Matthias Woolsey an undivided one-sixth interest in a mining claim, and placed Woolsey in possession. The transfer was in writing ; Woolsey was to pay six hundred dollars, so soon as his share of the claim should yield that amount of money, after deducting one dollar per day for expenses. On the sixth day of November, 1856, Ripson assigned to plaintiff his claim on Woolsey for six hundred…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
The Court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint. Although it is true, that where a complaint shows prima fade upon the facts stated, that the claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations, the defendant may take advantage of the defect by demurrer, yet it must clearly so appear. In chancery, under the English system, this was the rule ; at law it was otherwise; there the statute must have been pleaded ; but as our pleadings approximate more nearly to the chancery than the common law form, we have adopted the equity rule. But when the complaint does not directly sho w prima…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Kelley v. KriessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- First National Bank v. Pomona Tile Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
- Palmtag v. RoadhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Casey v. MillerIdaho Supreme Court · 1893