Smith v. Richmond
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth District. The complaint alleges in substance, that the defendant, on the fifteenth of January, 1857, executed his promissory note in the words and figures following, to wit: “$618.50. For value received, I promise to pay to Samuel Ferrio, or bearer, the sum of six hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty cents, three months from date, with interest at two per cent, per month until paid. Sacramento city, January 15th, 1857. (Signed) “ J. W. Richmond.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth District. The complaint alleges in substance, that the defendant, on the fifteenth of January, 1857, executed his promissory note in the words and figures following, to wit: “$618.50. For value received, I promise to pay to Samuel Ferrio, or bearer, the sum of six hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty cents, three months from date, with interest at two per cent, per month until paid. Sacramento city, January 15th, 1857. (Signed) “ J. W. Richmond.” Upon which note there is a credit of sixty dollars paid by defendant to Ferrio; that there is on the back of the note an…
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
Baldwin, J. and Cope, J. concurring.
Under the old system of pleading in actions at law, where a party was desirous of availing himself of the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the demand in suit, he was required to plead the same. He could not demur to the declaration, even where it appeared upon its face that the limitation prescribed by the statute had expired. If he did not plead the statute, he was considered as having waived its protection. In equitable suits the rule was different. In suits of this character the defendant could make the objection by demurrer that the remedy was barred…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Green v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Sublette v. TinneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Smith's heirs v. DixonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1861
- Watkins v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Waters v. WatersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Pleasant v. SamuelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Meeks v. HahnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Chabot v. TuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Kelley v. KriessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Humphrey v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.