Bushnell v. McCauley

7 Cal. 421
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1857·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Murray, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The plaintiff employed the defendant, as an agent, to buy gold-dust, allowing him a certain per cent, on each one thousand dollars purchased.

The declaration alleges a deposit • of nine hundred and forty dollars for this purpose, and a refusal by the defendant, on demand, to account for, or pay over said money, or its equivalent in gold-dust.

The answer specifically denies a demand.

The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that no demand had been proved. The Court below overruled the motion-, at the same time instructing the jury that a demand need not be shown. This was error. “ In an action against an agent, for not accounting, etc., a request to account and pay over the balance must be stated.” 1 Chitty’s Pleading, § 331, and the cases there cited.

If necessary to be stated, it must be proven, as the allegata and probata must correspond.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Bushnell v. McCauley, 7 Cal. 421 (Cal. 1857).

7 Cal. 421 (Bushnell v. McCauley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Keller Research Corp. v. Roquerre
99 F. Supp. 964 (S.D. California, 1951)
Edgerton v. Armour & Co.
94 F. Supp. 549 (S.D. California, 1950)
Burke v. Maguire
98 P. 21 (California Supreme Court, 1908)