Gushee v. Leavitt
This text of 5 Cal. 160 (Gushee v. Leavitt) 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
Murray, C. J., concurred.
In defense to an action on a promissory note, it is not sufficient to [161]*161plead in general terms want of consideration, and that the note was obtained by fraud. The answer should set out the circumstances under which the note was given, and point out the facts which constitute the fraud.
Nor is it a good plea to allege that the note sued on is the property of another, and not of the plaintiff, without showing some substantial matter of defense against the one asserted to be the owner, and which could not be set up against the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Cal. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gushee-v-leavitt-cal-1855.