Scroufe v. Clay
JOHN SCROUFE v. FREDERIC CLAY
- 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
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 *124that there was no allegation of non-payment. The demurrer was overruled.
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.
Cites, in this corpus
- Davanay v. Eggenhoff No. 2,935 · 1872-04-15
- Frisch v. Caler · 1862-07-01
Cited by
- A. Widemann Co. v. Digges Civ. No. 1147. · 1913-02-28
- Harlan v. Lambert Civ. No. 925. · 1912-06-28
- Irwin v. Insurance Co. of North America Civ. No. 874. · 1911-05-03
- Penrose v. Winter Sac. No. 800. · 1901-12-31
- Hawley Bros. Hardware Co. v. Brownstone S. F. No. 870 · 1899-03-03
- Hurley v. Ryan S. F. No. 772 · 1897-11-17
- Tomlinson v. Ayres S. F. No. 520 · 1897-07-16
- Ryan v. Holliday L. A. No. 80 · 1895-12-10
- London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Co. v. Liebes No. 15784 · 1894-12-22
- Barney v. Vigoreaux No. 13641 · 1892-01-05
- Notman v. Green No. 14164 · 1891-07-05
- Gardner v. Donnelly No. 12993 · 1890-11-12
- Grant v. Sheerin No. 12749 · 1890-05-31
- O'Hanlon v. Denvir No. 12489 · 1889-10-08
- Wise v. Hogan No. 11147 · 1888-10-04