Gushee v. Leavitt (1855) · DecisionDepot

Gushee v. Leavitt

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1855Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant in an action on a promissory note must plead specific facts regarding the circumstances of the note's execution and the alleged fraud, rather than using general allegations. Furthermore, a plea that the plaintiff is not the owner of the note is insufficient unless it demonstrates a substantial defense against the true owner that is unavailable against the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether a general plea of want of consideration and fraud is sufficient in an action on a promissory note.
Whether a defendant may defeat an action on a promissory note by merely alleging the plaintiff is not the owner without asserting a specific defense against the true owner.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The answer should set out the circumstances under which the note was given, and point out the facts which constitute the fraud.”

Synopsis

In defense to an action on a promissory note it is not sufficient to plead in general terms want of consideration, and that the note was obtained by fraud. The answer should set out the circumstances under which the note was given, and, point out the facts which constitute the fraud.

It is not a good plea to allege that a note sued on is the property of another, and not of the plaintiff, without showing some substantial matter of defense against the one asserted to be the owner, and which could not be set up against the plaintiff.

Heydenfeldt. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.

In defense to an action on a promissory note, it is not sufficient to [161]plead in general terms want of consideration, and that the note was obtained by fraud. The answer should set out the circumstances under which the note was given, and point out the facts which constitute the fraud.

Nor is it a good plea to allege that the note sued on is the property of another, and not of the plaintiff, without showing some substantial matter of defense against the one asserted to be the owner, and which could not be set up against the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Gushee v. Leavitt

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief