Gatliff v. Cram, Rogers & Co.

California Supreme Court

Gatliff v. Cram, Rogers & Co.

1 Cal. Unrep. 47

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 8, 1856

DocketNo. 1299

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 47 (Gatliff v. Cram, Rogers & Co.) 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

Gatliff v. Cram, Rogers & Co., 1 Cal. Unrep. 47 (Cal. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

TERRY, J.

— The complaint in this case does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The fact that defendants drew a bill in favor of a third party, which bill was protested for nonpayment, and notice of protest given, certainly would not entitle the plaintiff to recover, without showing that he was the holder or indorsee of the bill. The judgment in this case under the present pleadings would foe no bar to a suit upon the same bill by the holder.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

I concur: Heydenfeldt, J.

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

TERRY, J.

— The complaint in this case does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The fact that defendants drew a bill in favor of a third party, which bill was protested for nonpayment, and notice of protest given, certainly would not entitle the plaintiff to recover, without showing that he was the holder or indorsee of the bill. The judgment in this case under the present pleadings would foe no bar to a suit upon the same bill by the holder.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

I concur: Heydenfeldt, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatliff-v-cram-rogers-co-cal-1856.