Fay v. Cobb
This text of 51 Cal. 313 (Fay v. Cobb) 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.
Opinion
The court below struck out the general denial of Patterson as being “ sham,” and directed judgment to be entered for the plaintiff.
While it is true that a general denial, under the Code, if falsely interposed, or the general issue at common law, if falsely pleaded, may alike be characterized as “sham,” neither of these could be disposed of by the Court in a summary way, nor could an inquiry, in advance of the trial, be entertained as to the good faith of defendant in pleading such defenses.
The defendant has the right to put the plaintiff to the proof of his demand, and to require that he establish it by evidence admissible for that purpose. An ex parte affidavit is not such evidence. (Wayland v. Tysen, 45 N. Y. R. 282.)
The order of the court below, in so far as it struck out the general denial of Patterson, is erroneous, and the judgment is reversed and cause remanded. Remittitur forthwith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
51 Cal. 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fay-v-cobb-cal-1876.