Duke

Duke v. Thornbury

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 431·62 Cal. App. 505·217 P. 100
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 14, 1923Civ. No. 4564.California936 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Langdon, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment against her upon a promissory note executed and delivered by her to the plaintiff. The appeal is presented to us upon the judgment-roll alone and it is contended that the general and special demurrer of the defendant to the complaint should have been sustained and that the judgment must be reversed because of the failure of the trial court to find upon certain issues presented by the pleadings. The plaintiff set out in full in the complaint the note sued upon and also alleged that he had received from the defendant as collateral security for the payment of said note a certain promissory note of John L. Stickel, which note was also set out in full in the complaint.

It must be conceded to the appellant that the allegations in the complaint as to the nonpayment of the note upon which recovery was sought were ambiguous and insufficient and that the special demurrer attacking them upon these grounds should have been sustained. However, after the court had overruled the demurrer, defendant answered, admitting the execution of the note sued upon and denying that defendant had failed to pay the same. This, of course, would cure any…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.