Bushnell v. McCauley

California Supreme Court
Bushnell v. McCauley, 7 Cal. 421 (Cal. 1857)
Murray

Bushnell v. McCauley

Opinion of the Court

Murray, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

The plaintiff employed the defendant, as an agent, to buy gold-dust, allowing him a certain per cent, on each one thousand dollars purchased.

The declaration alleges a deposit • of nine hundred and forty dollars for this purpose, and a refusal by the defendant, on demand, to account for, or pay over said money, or its equivalent in gold-dust.

The answer specifically denies a demand.

The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that no demand had been proved. The Court below overruled the motion-, at the same time instructing the jury that a demand need not be shown. This was error. “ In an action against an agent, for not accounting, etc., a request to account and pay over the balance must be stated.” 1 Chitty’s Pleading, § 331, and the cases there cited.

If necessary to be stated, it must be proven, as the allegata and probata must correspond.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name
BUSHNELL v. McCAULEY
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
In an action against an agent for not accounting, etc., a request to account and pay over must be alleged in the complaint, and prored at the trial.