Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Savings v. Christensen
THE FARMERS' AND MECHANICS' BANK OF SAVINGS v. ANDREW CHRISTENSEN
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
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.
Cited by
- Melone v. Ruffino S.F. No. 1667. · 1900-08-14
- Brennan v. Brennan Sac. No. 505 · 1893-11-26
- Botto v. Vandament No. 11024 · 1885-08-22