Brown v. Olmsted

California Supreme Court

Brown v. Olmsted

50 Cal. 162, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 114

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1875

DocketNo. 4175

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 50 Cal. 162 (Brown v. Olmsted) 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

Brown v. Olmsted, 50 Cal. 162, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 114 (Cal. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Niles, J.:

1. The question whether the draft upon Hitchcock, Shaw & Co. was received by the plaintiff in payment of his note, was submitted to the jury upon substantially conflicting evidence, and will not, therefore, be examined into here.

2. We think the evidence sufficiently shows all the diligence in the presentation of the draft for payment that could be reasonably required under the circumstances of the case.

3. There was no error in giving the first instruction asked by the plaintiff. The decisions of the different States are not uniform upon the question presented by this instruction. But this Court has repeatedly recognized the rule that an express agreement must be shown to establish the fact that a bill or note of either the debtor or a third person [166]*166was taken by the creditor in payment of a pre-existing debt. (Griffith v. Grogan, 12 Cal. 320; Welch v. Allington, 23 Cal. 322; Brewster v. Bours, 8 Cal. 506.)

We think it unnecessary to discuss other points made by the appellant. We find no error in the record.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.

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

By the Court, Niles, J.:

1. The question whether the draft upon Hitchcock, Shaw & Co. was received by the plaintiff in payment of his note, was submitted to the jury upon substantially conflicting evidence, and will not, therefore, be examined into here.

2. We think the evidence sufficiently shows all the diligence in the presentation of the draft for payment that could be reasonably required under the circumstances of the case.

3. There was no error in giving the first instruction asked by the plaintiff. The decisions of the different States are not uniform upon the question presented by this instruction. But this Court has repeatedly recognized the rule that an express agreement must be shown to establish the fact that a bill or note of either the debtor or a third person [166]*166was taken by the creditor in payment of a pre-existing debt. (Griffith v. Grogan, 12 Cal. 320; Welch v. Allington, 23 Cal. 322; Brewster v. Bours, 8 Cal. 506.)

We think it unnecessary to discuss other points made by the appellant. We find no error in the record.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Cal. 162, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-olmsted-cal-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack