Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Savings v. Christensen

California Supreme Court July 1, 1877

Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Savings v. Christensen, 51 Cal. 571 (Cal. 1877)

Opinion of the Court

By the Court:

The answer denies that the promissory note remains unpaid and that anything remains due thereon. This denial, of itself; cast the onus upon plaintiff, to prove the nonpayment by production of the note, or otherwise.

The answer also avers that the note was satisfied on the day it became due, by conveyance to the payee, while he was the “holder ” thereof, without any notice of the alleged prior assignment.

This denial and averment were sufficient to raise issues of fact, and the court below erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff upon the pleadings.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name: THE FARMERS' AND MECHANICS' BANK OF SAVINGS v. ANDREW CHRISTENSEN
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Answee to Complaint.-—An answer to a complaint on a promissory note, which denies that the note remains unpaid, and that anything remains due thereon, raises an issue which devolves on the plaintiff the onus of proving non-payment,-by production of the note or otherwise. Idem.—An answer to a complaint on a note which avers that the note was satisfied on the day it became due b)r payment to the original holder without notice of any assignment, raises an issue, even if the suit is brought by an assignee.