From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stewart v. Street & Co.

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1858
10 Cal. 372 (Cal. 1858)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of Tuolumne.

         This was an action brought on three several promissory notes, of $ 115.68 each. They are all in the same form, which is as follows:

         " Sullivan's Creek and Tuolumne River Water Co., " $ 115 68-100. Shaw's Flat, September 16th, 1854.

         " The undersigned promise to pay J. S. Stewart, or bearer, one hundred and fifteen 68-100 dollars, in monthly pro rata installments, out of the first net proceeds from sale of water.

         " No. 18. J. Street & Co. Proprietors."

         The complaint, after setting out the notes and the averment of the amount due thereon, alleges that defendants turned off the water from the ditch that was in operation and conveying water to various mining localities in Tuolumne County, at the time said instruments of writings were executed, and that the quantity of water was thereby greatly diminished, etc. The complaint was verified.

         To this complaint, the defendants answered by admitting the making of the several instruments, and " denied, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, all and singular the other allegations in said complaint."

         The cause was tried before a jury--a verdict was rendered for plaintiff, and judgment entered thereon. Defendants appealed.

         The record contains no statement on appeal.

         COUNSEL:

         Barber, for Appellants.

          L. Quint, for Respondents.


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

         OPINION

          BALDWIN, Judge

         The defendants are in no condition to avail themselves of the points made in their briefs, if, indeed, there is anything in them. In the first place, there seems to be no statement. In the second, the allegations of the complaint are not specifically denied; and, in the third place, we think that the only point seriously urged by the appellants--the want of consideration in the paper sued upon--is unfounded, because whatever the rule may be at common law, the statute (Wood's Dig. 75, 81,) makes such an instrument as that sued on prima facie evidence of indebtedness, though no consideration be expressed therein.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Stewart v. Street & Co.

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1858
10 Cal. 372 (Cal. 1858)
Case details for

Stewart v. Street & Co.

Case Details

Full title:STEWART v. STREET&CO.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1858

Citations

10 Cal. 372 (Cal. 1858)

Citing Cases

Patterson v. Ely

The answer is but a general denial, and does not put in issue any material fact alleged in the complaint.…

McLaughlin v. Clausen

Donner & Burdett, for Respondent.          The contract shows sufficient consideration for the note, and is…