Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Savings v. Christensen
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Melone v. Ruffino (Cal. 1900)
- Brennan v. Brennan (Cal. 1893)
- Botto v. Vandament (Cal. 1885)
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
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.