Amador County v. Butterfield

51 Cal. 526
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1876
DocketNo. 5343
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 51 Cal. 526 (Amador County v. Butterfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amador County v. Butterfield, 51 Cal. 526 (Cal. 1876).

Opinion

By the Court:

The action is brought upon the official bond of the County Treasurer of the county of Amador. In the complaint several breaches of the bond are set out—“ that he, Butter-field, did not perform all the duties of his said office of County Treasurer required by law, in this, that he did not safely keep * * * did not apply or pay out” the public moneys as required by law; that he did not keep or render an account of these moneys, nor disburse the moneys upon warrants issued by the County Auditor, etc.

The second defense found in the answer of the defendants (who are Butterfield and the sureties on his official bond), is as follows: They deny that the said defendant, John A. Butterfield did not safely keep the said sum of $20,142.76, in said second amended complaint mentioned, or as much thereof as ever came to his hands, or any part thereof, as required by law; or that he did not keep or render an account of the receipt or expenditure of said money or any part thereof; or that the said sum of money, or any part thereof, has been lost to the plaintiff by reason of any act or misconduct, or neglect, failure, or refusal of duty, of the said defendant, John A. Butterfield.”

In this condition of the pleadings, judgment was rendered by the court below in favor of the plaintiff without a trial of the action. The judgment was entered for the plaintiff upon motion, upon the pleadings. The determination of such a motion is not a trial of the cause, and the motion cannot prevail if the answer on file contain a sufficient denial of the material allegations of the complaint. In such case the plaintiff can recover only upon proving the cause of action set forth in the complaint.

We are of the opinion that the second defense above recited was in itself a sufficient denial of the allegations of the [528]*528. complaint, and that the motion for judgment should for that reason have been denied below.

This view renders it unnecessary to consider other points relied upon in the argument.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Remittitur forthwith.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gatrell v. Salt Lake County
149 P.2d 827 (Utah Supreme Court, 1944)
Essig v. Seaman
264 P. 552 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Cuneo v. Lawson
263 P. 530 (California Supreme Court, 1928)
Stauffer v. Campbell
1911 OK 339 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Casci v. Ozalli
110 P. 932 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
Thomas v. Ray
48 Colo. 423 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1910)
The Snipsic Co. v. Smith
93 P. 1035 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
State ex rel. Perkins v. Board of Commissioners
51 P. 204 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1897)
Balmford v. Grand Lodge of the Ancient Order of United Workmen
19 Misc. 1 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Seattle National Bank v. Carter
48 L.R.A. 177 (Washington Supreme Court, 1895)
McLaughlin v. Alexander
49 N.W. 99 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1891)
Cushing v. Keslar
9 P. 659 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Botto v. Vandament
7 P. 753 (California Supreme Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Cal. 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amador-county-v-butterfield-cal-1876.