Legal Opinion

Rawlins v. Ferguson

California Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 1901No. S.F. No. 1516PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.

This is an action upon a promissory note, brought the day before it would have been barred by the statute of limitations. The defense attempted is in the nature of a plea in abatement, that the note was secured by a mortgage, and only a suit to foreclose such mortgage can be maintained.

The pleadings are verified, and the amended answer makes no denial sufficient to throw the burden of proof upon the plaintiff, except as to the allegation that two hundred dollars is a reasonable fee for plaintiff’s attorney. In regard to that no question is made here.

The objection is made here that the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Savings & Loan Society v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Henley v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Burr v. MacLay Rancho Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Zimmer v. KilbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Williams v. RushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. McArthur Bros. Mercantile Co. v. HagiharaArizona Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Zimmer v. KilbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API