Taylor v. Ford
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Harrison v. Russell & Co. (Idaho 1909)
- Miller v. Kettenbach (Idaho 1910)
- Burleigh v. Hecht (S.D. 1908)
- Shields v. Johnson (Idaho 1904)
- County of Ada v. Bullen Bridge Co. (Idaho 1896)
- In re Foley (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada 1896)
- Gillespie v. Gouly (Cal. 1898)
- County of Ada v. Bullen Bridge Co. (Idaho 1897)
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
This action was brought under section 1050 of the Code of Civil Procedure, tcv have determined an adverse claim which defendant asserted against plaintiff upon a certain promissory note for $8,509.85. Defendant filed a pleading styled “ an answer and cross-complaint,” which was in form and substance a complaint upon said promissory note, with a prayer for judgment against plaintiff for the amount due thereon. Plaintiff answered, setting up want of consideration and other defenses. At the proper time, plaintiff demanded a jury. The court denied this demand, and proceeded to try the case without a jury, and subsequently rendered judgment against plaintiff for the amount which the court found to be due upon the note. Plaintiff appeals.
In refusing the demand for a jury, the court erred. The issues raised by the cross-complaint and the answer thereto were triable in the ordinary course of law, and by a jury, unless waived. It was a common-law action upon a promissory note, with a defense of want of consideration; and the case comes clearly within the principles stated in Donahue v. Meister, 88 Cal. 121.
The judgment and order are reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Sharpstein, J., Harrison, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.