Holmes v. West
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
A promissory note payable generally, but not specifying any time of payment, is due immediately; and a provision in the note that interest is to accrue after the decision of a certain suit, does not alter the principle.
In suit on a note and mortgage—the answer not denying the execution thereof— the decree recited, among other things, that the Court had duly considered the premises, and that “it appears from the note and mortgage sued upon that there was due plaintiff at the date of the commencement of this suit, for principal and interest upon the debt and mortgage mentioned and set forth in the complaint, the sum of $2,000; ” it is ordered, etc.: Held, that this constitutes a sufficient finding of facts to support the decree—amounting as it does to an indirect finding of the substantial matters in the complaint, to wit: the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage.
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. concurring.
This was a suit brought on a promissory note and to enforce a mortgage given to secure it. The complaint was demurred to on the ground assumed that the note was not due at the time of the suit. The note is payable generally, not specifying any time of payment, with a provision that interest shall accrue after a certain event, at a given rate. The rule is well settled that a note thus payable is due immediately; and the mere provision in respect to interest does not alter the principle. The demurrer, therefore, is not well taken.
The other objections are not sustained. There seems to be no statement in the record. The decree finds the sum due on the note and mortgage set out in the complaint. Probably this is not a very formal mode of stating the facts, but it may be considered an indirect assertion of the substantial matters in the complaint, which [626]were only the facts of the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage. The execution of the note and mortgage do not seem to he denied in the answer, and there appears no proof of the matters set out in the answer. We see no use, under the circumstances, of remanding the case.
Judgment affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)