Home/California Supreme Court/Scroufe v. Clay

Scroufe v. Clay

11 P. 882, 71 Cal. 123, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 538
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 28, 1886
DocketNo. 9760
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 11 P. 882 (Scroufe v. Clay) 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
Scroufe v. Clay, 11 P. 882, 71 Cal. 123, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 538 (Cal. 1886).

Opinion

The Court.

Action on a promissory note. The complaint averred that the defendant “ has refused and still refuses to pay ” the principal or interest of the note, or any part thereof, and “ that there is now due ” the sum, etc. The complaint was demurred to on the ground [124]*124that there was no allegation of non-payment. The demurrer was overruled.

We are of opinion the demurrer should have been sustained. The averments of the complaint are not equivalent to an averment of non-payment. “ The failure to pay constitutes the breach, and must be alleged.” (Frisch v. Caler, 21 Cal. 71; Davaney v. Eggenhoff, 43 Cal. 395.)

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer.

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

Related

United States ex rel. Magill-Weinsheimer Co. v. Sykes
44 F.2d 334 (Ninth Circuit, 1930)
A. Widemann Co. v. Digges
131 P. 882 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Harlan v. Lambert
125 P. 1079 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
Irwin v. Insurance Co. of North America
116 P. 294 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Baumgarten v. Alliance Assur. Co.
159 F. 275 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1908)
Hernández v. Muñiz
10 P.R. 16 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1906)
Penrose v. Winter
67 P. 772 (California Supreme Court, 1901)
Hawley Bros. Hardware Co. v. Brownstone
56 P. 468 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Hurley v. Ryan
51 P. 20 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Tomlinson v. Ayres
49 P. 717 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Ryan v. Holliday
42 P. 891 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Co. v. Liebes
38 P. 691 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Barney v. Vigoreaux
28 P. 678 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Notman v. Green
27 P. 157 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Gardner v. Donnelly
24 P. 1072 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
Grant v. Sheerin
23 P. 1094 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
O'Hanlon v. Denvir
22 P. 407 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Wise v. Hogan
19 P. 278 (California Supreme Court, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 P. 882, 71 Cal. 123, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scroufe-v-clay-cal-1886.