Beckley

Beckley v. Archer

Good Law
1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 332·74 Cal. App. 598·241 P. 422
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 16, 1925Docket No. 2965.California5,237 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hart, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover on a promissory note in the sum of $3,000 executed by the defendants in favor of one H. H. Schmitt as in part payment of the purchase price of a certain number of head of cattle. Said note was by said Schmitt, before the filing of the complaint herein, assigned to' the plaintiff. It was stipulated at the trial “that the note was duly made and executed by appellants and delivered to said Schmitt; that no part of the principal or interest had been paid, but that a credit of $175.00 should be allowed upon the note principal as of the date of its execution; that, in the transaction from which said note arose, said Schmitt was the agent of the respondent herein, and the note was delivered to him (Schmitt) as the agent of the respondent.”

The defendants, by their answer, admit the due execution of the note sued on, but set up as in avoidance of the obligations thereof a special defense founded upon fraud, alleging that' they were induced to purchase the cattle, which consisted of forty-nine head of “dairy cows,” upon the false representation by the said Schmitt that the said cows were in a perfectly healthy condition and in every way adapted…

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.