Younglove

Younglove v. Cunningham

Good Law
1896 Cal. LEXIS 1104·5 Cal. Unrep. 281·43 P. 755
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 18, 1896S. F. No. 264California297 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Action upon a promissory note. Judgment went for plaintiff, and defendant appeals therefrom upon the judgment-roll. The single point made in support *282 of the appeal is that the lower court erred in overruling a general demurrer to the complaint, the contention being that there is no averment in the complaint of a consideration for the execution of the note, and that hence there is a failure to state a cause of action. There is nothing whatsoever of merit in the point. It is not essential to the statement of a cause of action founded upon a contract in writing to specially aver a consideration. The writing imports a consideration (Civ. Code, sec. 1614), and the presumption thus arising is one of law, which is not required to be averred (Henke v. Association, 100 Cal. 429 , 34 Pac. 1089 ). Appellant in fact conceded at the oral argument that his contention was untenable, but, in response to the demand made by respondent for damages as for a frivolous appeal, urged that when the appeal was taken, it was taken in good faith, and in the honest conviction that the point involved error. This assurance should come from the record, or at least find some semblance of support therein,…

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.