TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smith v. Sparrow

Smith v. Sparrow, 13 Cal. 596 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1859
Judges
Baldwin
Citations
13 Cal. 5961859 Cal. LEXIS 210
Syllabus
"Where suit is pending in one Court on a note of defendant, though no summons has been served and no appearance made, he cannot bring a bill in equity, in another Court, to enjoin the collection of the note, or to cancel it, the averment being, simply, that he has a good defense to the note.
Summary
Appeal from the Thirteenth District. The complaint avers in substance that, in settlement of a transaction between the parties, plaintiff gave defendant a note. That, afterwards, discovering the amount was too much, in consequence of deceit practised by defendant, plaintiff induced defendant to make a new computation of interest, etc. and to agree to surrender the note upon payment by plaintiff of twenty-six hundred and fifty dollars, about one-half the note. That he paid the money, defendant took it, and then refused to surrender the note. Prayer for an injunction against suit on the note, and for surrender, etc. etc. Defendant demurred, and the demurrer was overruled; but the Court sustained a plea in abatement, that defendant, before the commencement of this suit, had brought suit on the note in the Twelfth District Court, which suit was there pending, although defendant therein (plaintiff here) had not been served with process. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his bill.

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

Opinion of the Court — Baldwin

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

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—

Terry, C. J. concurring.

We think the Court below did not err to the prejudice of the Appellant in dismissing his bill. The bill alleges merely that the plaintiff has a legal defense to a promissory note held by the defendant. In Lewis v. Tobias, ( 10 Cal. 577 ,) we held that equity will not interfere in such cases, unless under peculiar circumstances. We do not understand this to be a proceeding under the 527th Section of the Practice Act. If it were, it comes within the principle of King v. Hall & Huggins, ( 5 Cal. 82 .) *598 Sparrow having taken his proceedings in the Twelfth District Court, the plaintiff has a full opportunity of terminating the controversy by having the case tried.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1896: 11925: 118962026peak 1896 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. County of Ada v. Bullen Bridge Co.36 L.R.A. 367 (Idaho 1896)
  2. First National Bank of San Pedro v. Superior Court234 P. 420 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)

Most recent

  1. First National Bank of San Pedro v. Superior Court234 P. 420 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)
  2. County of Ada v. Bullen Bridge Co.36 L.R.A. 367 (Idaho 1896)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Lewis v. Tobias, 10 Cal. 574 (1858) 9
James King of WM. v. Hall, 5 Cal. 82 (1855) 1

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