From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sharp v. His Creditors

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1858
10 Cal. 418 (Cal. 1858)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, County of Siskiyou.

         COUNSEL:

         J. A. Fletcher, for Appellant.


         JUDGES: Baldwin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Terry, C. J., concurring.

         OPINION

          BALDWIN, Judge

         In this case, the petitioner filed his petition in the usual form, in the District Court of Siskiyou County, praying to be discharged from his debts. The proceedings on his part seem to be regular. The creditors filed a demurrer to the petition. The demurrer sets out, as cause of opposition, the general objection that there are not facts sufficient to entitle the petitioner to his discharge, and more specifically that the debts of petitioner are not shown to have been created in this State. The Court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the petition, with costs.

         Without passing upon the question of the regularity or propriety of this proceeding on the part of the creditors, it seems to us that the Court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The facts are sufficient, and the Court does not owe its jurisdiction to an averment on the face of the petition that the debts arose in this State. What the effect of a discharge may be upon debts made in another State, it is not necessary to determine.

         Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.


Summaries of

Sharp v. His Creditors

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1858
10 Cal. 418 (Cal. 1858)
Case details for

Sharp v. His Creditors

Case Details

Full title:SHARP v. HIS CREDITORS

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1858

Citations

10 Cal. 418 (Cal. 1858)

Citing Cases

Moore v. Long Beach Development Co.

Inevitable accident is a defense. (Brown's Legal Maxims, 5th ed., p. 393; Hoffman v. Tuolumne Water Co…

Magee v. Pacific Improv. Co.

(See Central T. Co. v. Pudman's Car Co ., 139 U.S. 60, 61.) The defendant was not liable for the loss as it…