Gostorfs v. Taaffe, McCahill & Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Twelfth District. Suit upon a promissory note for $10,400, executed by defendants to the order of plaintiff; the complaint, not verified, but setting out the note. The motion to strike out having been sustained, judgment was rendered for ¡plaintiff. Other facts are stated by the Court. Defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
Field, C. J. concurring.
The question in this case turns upon the construction of that portion of the fiftieth section of the Practice Act relating to sham answers and defenses. The suit was brought upon a promissory note for $10,400, and the only defense set up in the answer was a plea of payment. The Court, on the motion of the plaintiff, based upon affidavits showing the falsity of this plea, and the bad faith of the defendants in pleading it, ordered the answer to be stricken out. The pleadings are not verified, and no issue was taken upon the matters set forth in the affidavits. It is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Piercy v. SabinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- The People v. . McCumberNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
3Cited by6 opinions
- State Commission in Lunacy v. WelchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Greenbaum v. TurrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Foren v. DealeyOregon Supreme Court · 1870
- Ford Motor Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Stokes v. FarnsworthU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Utah · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.