Davanay v. Eggenhoff
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Mariposa County. The complaint, among other things, averred “ that there is now due from the defendants to the plaintiff on the aforesaid note the principal sum of two thousand dollars, with interest thereon at the rate of one and a quarter per cent per month from the 10th day of March, 1870,” etc. The defendants appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Rhodes, J.:
The complaint contains a copy of the promissory note in suit. The answer, among other matters, contains a general denial. The pleadings are not verified. The plaintiff moved for and obtained judgment on the pleadings.
*397The question is, whether the general denial presents any issue of fact. In Frisch v. Caler, 21 Cal. 14, this question was fully considered. The statute then in force required a replication to new matter in the answer. The answer averred that the note in suit had been paid by the defendant, except a small sum, which was admitted to be then due; and it was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Humphreys v. McCallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Brown v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Brown v. OrrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Witkowski v. HernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by17 opinions
- Wise v. HoganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Bank of Shasta v. BoydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Hershfield & Bro. v. AikenMontana Supreme Court · 1880
- Wetmore v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Scroufe v. ClayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.