California Supreme Court, 1855

Gushee v. Leavitt

California Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1855 · Heydenfeldt

5 Cal. 160

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Drovers National Bank v. Browne (Cal. Ct. App. 1928)
Rivera v. Cappa (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)
Weisbrod v. Weisbrod (Cal. Ct. App. 1938)
Gilbert v. Miller (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
United States National Bank v. Chappell (Mont. 1924)
Riegel v. Wollenshlager (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
Russ v. Tuttle (Cal. 1910)
Blood v. La Serena Land & Water Co. (Cal. 1896)
Giselman v. Starr (Cal. 1895)
Clarkson v. Hoyt (Cal. 1894)
Lyts v. Keevey (Wash. 1893)
Voorhees v. Fisher (Utah 1893)
Spring Valley Water Works v. City & County of San Francisco (Cal. 1890)
Martin v. Fox (Mo. Ct. App. 1890)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Heydenfeldt. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

In defense to an action on a promissory note, it is not sufficient to *161plead in general terms want of consideration, and that the note was obtained by fraud. The answer should set out the circumstances under which the note was given, and point out the facts which constitute the fraud.

Nor is it a good plea to allege that the note sued on is the property of another, and not of the plaintiff, without showing some substantial matter of defense against the one asserted to be the owner, and which could not be set up against the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.