Gatliff v. Cram, Rogers & Co. (1856) · DecisionDepot

Gatliff v. Cram, Rogers & Co.

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

California Supreme Court Dec 8, 1856 No. No. 1299Published

Before: Heydenfeldt, Terry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a complaint is insufficient to state a cause of action when it fails to establish that the plaintiff is the holder or indorsee of the protested bill of exchange.

Issues

Whether a complaint states a cause of action when it fails to allege the plaintiff is the holder or indorsee of a protested bill.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The complaint in this case does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”

“without showing that he was the holder or indorsee of the bill.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Eighth Judicial District, Siskiyou County.

TERRY, J. — The complaint in this case does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The fact that defendants drew a bill in favor of a third party, which bill was protested for nonpayment, and notice of protest given, certainly would not entitle the plaintiff to recover, without showing that he was the holder or indorsee of the bill. The judgment in this case under the present pleadings would foe no bar to a suit upon the same bill by the holder.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

I concur: Heydenfeldt, J.

Gatliff v. Cram, Rogers & Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief