Frost v. Harford (1870) · DecisionDepot

Frost v. Harford

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

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1870 No. No. 2,262Published

Before: Expressed, Sprague, Wallaoe

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the demurrer was properly overruled because the complaint did not show a misjoinder of parties, and it affirmed the lower court's findings of fact regarding the validity of the note.

Issues

Whether the complaint contained a misjoinder of parties plaintiff.
Whether the lower court's findings of fact regarding the note's validity should be disturbed on appeal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was upon tbe face of tbe complaint no misjoinder of parties plaintiff.”

“Tbe judgment and order are affirmed.”

Synopsis

Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Second District, Butte County.

Tbis action was brought in tbe name of S. L. Frost and Margaret F. Frost, bis wife, against defendant, administrator of tbe estate of William Harford, deceased, to recover a sum of money due- on a note executed and delivered to said Margaret F. Frost, by said Wm. Harford during bis lifetime. Defendant demurred to tbe complaint on tbe ground of misjoinder of parties plaintiff in tbe action. Tbe demurrer was overruled.

Tbe cause was tried by tbe Court, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant moved for a new trial, wbicb was denied,' and from tbe order denying tbe motion for a new trial and from tbe judgment, tbis appeal is taken.

Tbe other facts are stated in tbe opinion-

Wallaoe, J., delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court, Temple, J., Cbookett, J., and Rhodes, C. J., concurring:

There was upon tbe face of tbe complaint no misjoinder of parties plaintiff. It did not appear by any averment in tbe complaint that tbe plaintiffs were husband and wife at tbe time tbe note was given to tbe female plaintiff. Tbe demurrer was, therefore, properly overruled.

[166]Tbe finding of tbe Court below is, tbat tbe defences set up in tbe answer (tbat tbe note in suit was not made by tbe deceased, William Harford; tbat there was no consideration etc.,) are not true in point of fact, and as tbe evidence is conflicting upon all tbe points, tbe finding'will not be disturbed bere.

Tbe defence set up in tbe answer, to tbe effect tbat tbe plaintiff, Margaret, is not tbe legal owner and bolder of tbis note, wbicb runs to ber upon its face, is frivolous; and tbe other defence, tbat tbe note is not ber separate property, is tbe statement of a mere conclusion of law; and each of these pretended defences would doubtless have been stricken out in tbe Court below on motion.

■ Tbe judgment and order are affirmed.

Sprague, J., expressed no opinion.

Frost v. Harford

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief