Castro v. Wetmore
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Seventh District. The averment in the complaint, as to the execution of the note is, The averment as to the loss of the note is: “That some time during the month of August or September, 1856, at or near Union City, in the State of California, he either lost the said promissory note, or the same was stolen from him; that he kept the said note in a small pocket-book, usually called a ‘port monnaie,’ which he carried with him. in his pocket; that said…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Seventh District. The averment in the complaint, as to the execution of the note is, The averment as to the loss of the note is: “That some time during the month of August or September, 1856, at or near Union City, in the State of California, he either lost the said promissory note, or the same was stolen from him; that he kept the said note in a small pocket-book, usually called a ‘port monnaie,’ which he carried with him. in his pocket; that said pocket-book, together with said note, was either accidentally lost by him, or the same was stolen from him at the time and place…
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
Field, C. J. concurring
This is an action upon a lost note, and the complaint contains a statement of all the facts necessary to entitle the plaintiff to recover. The pleadings are verified, and the material allegations of the compaint are not denied by the answer.
1. The complaint alleges, that on a particular day the note in question was made by the defendant, and delivered to the plaintiff. The answer denies the making and delivery of the note on the day mentioned in the complaint. This is clearly no denial of the substantial matter of the averment, and its only effect is to raise an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Price v. DunlapCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by1 opinion
- Caulfield v. SandersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861