Robinson v. Coady

Cal. District Court

Robinson v. Coady

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 179

DecidedAugust 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 179 (Robinson v. Coady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California District Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. Coady, 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 179 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Norton, J.

held that he should have to consider the first obEg&tiom sued on as a promissory note, although he was surprised'!® find so little authority upon the question, where such instruments as this sre so common. The case of Russel vs. Whipple, 2 Cowen 135, approved in the case of Luquee vs. Prosser, 1 Hill 256, is the only ease efetóti ly in point, and it was there held that a due-bill in this item substantially, was a promissory note within the statute.

As to the obligation to the second note, it is error nof» 'to aver-den ramd of payment at the place where the note was made payable, as decided by our Supreme Court in Wild vs. Van Valkenburgh, January [180]*180Term, 1857. A general averment of a due demand is not sufficient where a special demand is necessary.

The demurrer- is overruled as to the first cause ot action, and sustained as to the second, with. leave to amend upon payment of costs.

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

Norton, J.

held that he should have to consider the first obEg&tiom sued on as a promissory note, although he was surprised'!® find so little authority upon the question, where such instruments as this sre so common. The case of Russel vs. Whipple, 2 Cowen 135, approved in the case of Luquee vs. Prosser, 1 Hill 256, is the only ease efetóti ly in point, and it was there held that a due-bill in this item substantially, was a promissory note within the statute.

As to the obligation to the second note, it is error nof» 'to aver-den ramd of payment at the place where the note was made payable, as decided by our Supreme Court in Wild vs. Van Valkenburgh, January [180]*180Term, 1857. A general averment of a due demand is not sufficient where a special demand is necessary.

The demurrer- is overruled as to the first cause ot action, and sustained as to the second, with. leave to amend upon payment of costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-coady-caldistct-1857.