TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Terry v. Sickles

Terry v. Sickles, 13 Cal. 427 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1859
Judges
Cope, Covering, Different, Here, Only, Particulars, Points, Rendered, Same, Were
Citations
13 Cal. 427
Cited by 25
Syllabus
Where, in suit on an account stated, the only evidence was that of a witness who said defendant, on presentation of the account, admitted it to be correct and promised to pay it, and the Court charged the jury that, if they believed the testimony of the witness, they must find for plaintiff' the amount claimed; and they so found, lldd: That the instruction did not prejudice defendant, as hut one verdict could have been rendered under the evidence. To sustain an action on an account stated, it must be shown there was a demand in favor of plaintiff acceded to by defendant. And if defendant does not object to the account as presented, within a reasonable lime, his silence will be an admission of its correctness. In such action evidence that the items of the account arc overcharged is not admis- ■ sible, the complaint being verified, and the answer not averring fraud or mistake in the accounting. Query: Whether such evidence would he admissible under a general denial if the pleadings were not verified ? Where the pleadings arc verified, every matter of defense, not directly responsive to tile allegations of the complaint, must be set up in the answer.
Summary
Appeal from the Twelfth District. Action on an account stated. Complaint and answer verified. The answer admits the purchase of the goods, as stated in the complaint, and avers that defendant agreed to pay fair market price. Denies that there ever was an account stated in which the balance alleged, or any balance, was found due plaintiff; denies that he ever promised to pay, or that, on a just accounting, defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum claimed. On the trial, plaintiff introduced a witness who testified in substance, that, as agent of plaintiff, he presented the account sued on to defendant, who examined it for some time, and said it was correct; but that there were arrangements for settling it in Mew York, and that if witness did not soon get advices that it was so settled, he defendant, would settle it with witness. Witness identified the account, and it was given in evidence. Plaintiff closed. Defendant offered in evidence the original accounts furnished by plaintiff, of which the account in evidence is a summary, showing what the articles were, and the prices charged, and then offered to prove that the articles were charged at more than fair market value. The evidence was ruled out, on objection, defendant excepting. Case closed. The Court instructed the jury, that if they believed the testimony of the witness, Belknap, in relation to the stating of the account, they must find for the plaintiff the amount claimed. Yerdict for plaintiff; judgment accordingly. Defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wererenderedsamedifferentparticularscoveringpointsonlyherecope

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

There were two opinions rendered in this case. The judgment is the same, but the opinions being different in some particulars, and both covering all the points in the case, the last only, delivered at the July Term, 1860, is inserted here. It was delivered by Cope, J.

Field, C. J. concurring.

We have examined the questions in this case, and are satisfied of the correctness of the former decision of this Court. The objection to the instruction given by the Court below is purely technical. The instruction could not have prejudiced the defendant. There was but one witness examined, and his testimony established every fact necessary to entitle the plaintiff to recover. Upon the evidence before them but one verdict could have been rendered by the jury, and we do not see how the instruction can be regarded as such an error as. would justify a reversal.

In support of an action upon an account stated, it is necessary to show that there was a demand in favor of the plaintiff, which was acceded to by the defendant. But the admission of the correctness of the demand need not be express and in terms. If the account be sent to the debtor, and he do not object to it within a reasonable time, his acquiescence ivill be taken as an admission that the account is truly stated. “ So,” says Green-leaf, “if one item only is objected to, it is an admission of the rest. So, if a person is employed by both parties to examine the accounts in their presence, and he strikes a balance against one, which, though done without authority is not objected to, it is *430 sufficient proof of an account stated.” (2 Green. Ev. Sec. 126.) In this ease the account was presented to defendant, and he not only admitted its correctness, but promised to pay it.

The evidence in relation to the amount of the account was properly excluded. It is not alleged in the answer that there was any fraud or mistake in the original accounting. If the pleadings were not verified, the introduction of this evidence might have been proper under a general denial; but this point does not arise in the case, and we express no opinion in regard to it. In all cases where the pleadings are verified, every matter of defense not directly responsive to the allegations of the complaint must be set up in the answer.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 25 cases

View all citing references →
1859–1860: 11861–1862: 21863–1864: 11873–1874: 11875–1876: 11879–1880: 21881–1882: 11883–1884: 11885–1886: 21887–1888: 21891–1892: 11897–1898: 11903–1904: 11907–1908: 21917–1918: 11921–1922: 11931–1932: 11935–1936: 11941–1942: 11967–1968: 118592026peak 1861 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hendy v. March17 P. 702 (Cal. 1888)
  2. Parsons v. Segno201 P. 580 (Cal. 1921)
  3. Trafton v. Youngblood442 P.2d 648 (Cal. 1968)
  4. Robinson v. Western Pacific Railroad48 Cal. 409 (1874)
  5. Auzerais v. Naglee15 P. 371 (Cal. 1887) · Dissent
  6. Goble v. Dillon86 Ind. 327 (1882)

Most recent

  1. Trafton v. Youngblood442 P.2d 648 (Cal. 1968)
  2. Lacy Manufacturing Co. v. Gold Crown Mining Co.126 P.2d 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
  3. Rehbock v. Reservoir Hill Gasoline Co.57 P.2d 1357 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
  4. J. D. Halstead Lumber Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.298 P. 925 (Ariz. 1931)
  5. Parsons v. Segno201 P. 580 (Cal. 1921)
  6. Schneider v. Oakman Consolidated Mining Co.176 P. 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list