Scroufe v. Clay
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States ex rel. Magill-Weinsheimer Co. v. Sykes (9th Cir. 1930)
- A. Widemann Co. v. Digges (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
- Irwin v. Insurance Co. of North America (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)
- Baumgarten v. Alliance Assur. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1908)
- Grant v. Sheerin (Cal. 1890)
- Hernández v. Muñiz (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1906)
- Penrose v. Winter (Cal. 1901)
- Tomlinson v. Ayres (Cal. 1897)
- Hurley v. Ryan (Cal. 1897)
- Ryan v. Holliday (Cal. 1895)
- London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Co. v. Liebes (Cal. 1894)
- Barney v. Vigoreaux (Cal. 1892)
- Notman v. Green (Cal. 1891)
- Wise v. Hogan (Cal. 1888)
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
Action on a promissory note. The complaint averred that the defendant “ has refused and still refuses to pay ” the principal or interest of the note, or any part thereof, and “ that there is now due ” the sum, etc. The complaint was demurred to on the ground
We are of opinion the demurrer should have been sustained. The averments of the complaint are not equivalent to an averment of non-payment. “ The failure to pay constitutes the breach, and must be alleged.” (Frisch v. Caler, 21 Cal. 71; Davaney v. Eggenhoff, 43 Cal. 395.)
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.