Scroufe v. Clay

California Supreme Court

Scroufe v. Clay

11 P. 882, 71 Cal. 123, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 538

California Supreme Court·Decided September 28, 1886·No. No. 9760·Published·Cited by 18 cases

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] that 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

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] that 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.

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

Pincite

11 P. 882 (Scroufe v. Clay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related