Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Savings v. Christensen (1877) · DecisionDepot

Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Savings v. Christensen

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1877 No. No. 5227Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's answer, which denied nonpayment and averred satisfaction of the note, raised material issues of fact that precluded judgment on the pleadings.

Issues

Whether a denial of nonpayment in an answer creates an issue of fact requiring proof by the plaintiff.
Whether an averment of satisfaction of a promissory note by conveyance to the holder creates an issue of fact.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This denial and averment were sufficient to raise issues of fact, and the court below erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff upon the pleadings.”

“The answer denies that the promissory note remains unpaid and that anything remains due thereon. This denial, of itself; cast the onus upon plaintiff, to prove the nonpayment by production of the note, or otherwise.”

Synopsis

Answee to Complaint.-—An answer to a complaint on a promissory note, which denies that the note remains unpaid, and that anything remains due thereon, raises an issue which devolves on the plaintiff the onus of proving non-payment,-by production of the note or otherwise.

Idem.—An answer to a complaint on a note which avers that the note was satisfied on the day it became due b)r payment to the original holder without notice of any assignment, raises an issue, even if the suit is brought by an assignee.

By the Court: The answer denies that the promissory note remains unpaid and that anything remains due thereon. This denial, of itself; cast the onus upon plaintiff, to prove the nonpayment by production of the note, or otherwise.

The answer also avers that the note was satisfied on the day it became due, by conveyance to the payee, while he was the “holder ” thereof, without any notice of the alleged prior assignment.

This denial and averment were sufficient to raise issues of fact, and the court below erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff upon the pleadings.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Savings v. Christensen

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief