Wright

Wright v. Perry Byrne

Good Law
129 Cal. 614·1900 Cal. LEXIS 1035·62 P. 176
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 4, 1900S.F. No. 1886.California985 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gray, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment against him for costs, and from an order denying him a new trial.

The action was commenced April SO, 1896, and is to recover the amount of a promissory note dated ¡November 19, 1891, for four thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars and interest. This note is signed: “Kate C. Perry, guardian for the person and estate of Florence Blythe, a minor.” In addition to the usual allegations in a suit on a promissory note the amended complaint contains the following:

The complaint also alleges that the note was made and executed for a valuable consideration. The defendants answered separately, said Byrne in effect denying that the note was made for a valuable or any consideration, denying that she received or expended any money for which said note was given, and alleging that she received no consideration for said note whatever. Said Hinckley, in substance, denies that her co-defendant had any authority to make the note as guardian, denies that she (Hinckley) received any consideration for said note, and avers that there was never any consideration for any alleged agreement by her to repay the money represented by said note or to pay said note or 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.