Fay v. Cobb

51 Cal. 313
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1876
DocketNo. 4921
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

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.

Bluebook
Fay v. Cobb, 51 Cal. 313 (Cal. 1876).

Opinion

By the Court:

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

Kline v. Harris
152 N.W. 687 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1915)
Loranger v. Big Missouri Mining Co.
61 N.W. 686 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1895)
Green v. Hughitt School Twp.
59 N.W. 224 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
In re Bartholomew
41 Kan. 273 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1889)
Samuel Cupples Wooden Ware Co. v. Jensen
27 N.W. 206 (Supreme Court of Dakota, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Cal. 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fay-v-cobb-cal-1876.