Taylor v. Ford

California Supreme Court

Taylor v. Ford

28 P. 441, 92 Cal. 419, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1225

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 18, 1891

DocketNo. 12982

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 28 P. 441 (Taylor v. Ford) 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

Taylor v. Ford, 28 P. 441, 92 Cal. 419, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1225 (Cal. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

McFarland, J.

This action was brought under section 1050 of the Code of Civil Procedure, tcv have determined an adverse claim which defendant asserted against plaintiff upon a certain promissory note for $8,509.85. Defendant filed a pleading styled “ an answer and cross-complaint,” which was in form and substance a complaint upon said promissory note, with a prayer for judgment against plaintiff for the amount due thereon. Plaintiff answered, setting up want of consideration and other defenses. At the proper time, plaintiff demanded a jury. The court denied this demand, and proceeded to try the case without a jury, and subsequently rendered judgment against plaintiff for the amount which the court found to be due upon the note. Plaintiff appeals.

In refusing the demand for a jury, the court erred. The issues raised by the cross-complaint and the answer thereto were triable in the ordinary course of law, and by a jury, unless waived. It was a common-law action upon a promissory note, with a defense of want of consideration; and the case comes clearly within the principles stated in Donahue v. Meister, 88 Cal. 121.

The judgment and order are reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Sharpstein, J., Harrison, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

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

McFarland, J.

This action was brought under section 1050 of the Code of Civil Procedure, tcv have determined an adverse claim which defendant asserted against plaintiff upon a certain promissory note for $8,509.85. Defendant filed a pleading styled “ an answer and cross-complaint,” which was in form and substance a complaint upon said promissory note, with a prayer for judgment against plaintiff for the amount due thereon. Plaintiff answered, setting up want of consideration and other defenses. At the proper time, plaintiff demanded a jury. The court denied this demand, and proceeded to try the case without a jury, and subsequently rendered judgment against plaintiff for the amount which the court found to be due upon the note. Plaintiff appeals.

In refusing the demand for a jury, the court erred. The issues raised by the cross-complaint and the answer thereto were triable in the ordinary course of law, and by a jury, unless waived. It was a common-law action upon a promissory note, with a defense of want of consideration; and the case comes clearly within the principles stated in Donahue v. Meister, 88 Cal. 121.

The judgment and order are reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Sharpstein, J., Harrison, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 P. 441, 92 Cal. 419, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-ford-cal-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack