Case v. Maxey
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Contra Costa. Action on a promissory note. The defendant’s answer, filed May 5th, 1854, admits the execution of the note, and avers that it was given for the plaintiff's interest in land held jointly by the parties; it also avers that plaintiff and defendant were jointly interested in cattle purchased by them as partners and brought across the plains by plaintiff; that plaintiff had deceived defendant…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Contra Costa. Action on a promissory note. The defendant’s answer, filed May 5th, 1854, admits the execution of the note, and avers that it was given for the plaintiff's interest in land held jointly by the parties; it also avers that plaintiff and defendant were jointly interested in cattle purchased by them as partners and brought across the plains by plaintiff; that plaintiff had deceived defendant and pretended that one half of the cattle brought across by him belonged to other parties, and in the division of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.
Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
The order of the Court below striking out a portion of the answer was proper, as it was no defence to the action.
It is not alleged that the note sued upon was given in payment for a division of the cattle; on the contrary, it appears that it was given for the defendant’s interest in the ranch and money expended in bringing the cattle across the plains.
If the plaintiff has been deceived in the division of the stock, as he alleges, he should file his bill for a discovery and account; but as such…
2Cited by3 opinions
- DeTray v. HigginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Lane v. TurnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Sooy v. CerfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934