Skip to content

Hart v. Cooper

JACKSON HART v. STEPHEN COOPER and SARSHEL COOPER

Hart v. Cooper, 47 Cal. 77 (1873)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: July 1, 1873
Docket: No. 3,969
Citations: 47 Cal. 77

Cited by 5

Syllabus

Pboof of Counteb-Claim: Without Pleading It.—If the payee of a promissory note assigns it after it falls due, and “the payor, without knowledge of the assignment, and after it is made, has dealings with the payee, in which they become mutually indebted to each other, and in an action by the assignee, on the note, the payor proves as a set-off, the amount the payee became indebted to him in said dealings, the assignee may prove, as a counter-claim to the set-off, the amount in which the payor became indebted to the payee, in said dealings, without pleading it. Pboof of a Cboss-Dbmand.—When there has been no opportunity to plead ■ a cross-demand, it may be proved without pleading it.

Summary

Appeal from the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, Colusa County. April 3d, 1872, the defendants gave A. Mead their note for $365.55, payable one day after date, with interest at one and a half per cent, per month. On the 5th day of April, 1872, Mead assigned the note to S. P. French, and French, on the 24th day of February, 1873, assigned the note to the plaintiff. Between the two assignments Mead and the defendants had dealings together, and the amount of the defendants’ account, against Mead, was $235.30, while-Mead’s account against them was $200. The defendants had no notice of the assignments until after these dealings had taken place. The defendants, in their answer, pleaded their account against Mead as a set-off. On the trial, they proved this set-off and rested. The plaintiff then offered proof of Mead’s account against the defendants — the $200. The defendants objected, because this set-off had not been pleaded. The Court overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence, and gave judgment for the plaintiff, for the amount of the note, less the $35.30, the difference between the two accounts. The defendants appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

By the Court:

The action is upon a promissory note made by the defendants to one Mead. It appears from the bill of exceptions that, after the note was indorsed and transferred by Mead, but before the defendants had knowledge of that fact, Mead and the defendants had certain business dealings by which he became indebted to them in the sum of $235 80, and they to him in the sum of $200. The defendants pleaded their account as a set-off to the note, and when the plaintiff sought to introduce evidence to prove the indebtedness to Mead, and that there was really only a balance of $35 80 due from him, the defendants objected, on the ground that the evidence was irrelevant and incompetent, because the plaintiff had not pleaded this indebtedness. The Court overruled this objection and admitted the evidence, and this constitutes the only error assigned in the case.

*79 There was no error in the ruling. The two demands were cross - demands, and must be deemed compensated, so far as they equaled each other. The plaintiff had no opportunity, and was, therefore, not required to plead the demand in favor of Mead.

Judgment and order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Freeman v. Seitz58 P. 690 (Cal. 1899)
Downey v. Humphreys227 P.2d 484 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
Griswold v. Pieratt42 P. 820 (Cal. 1895)
Estate of Smith268 P.2d 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)
Davis v. Rawhide Gold Mining Co.113 P. 898 (Cal. Ct. App. 1910)

Most recent

Estate of Smith268 P.2d 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954)
Downey v. Humphreys227 P.2d 484 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
Davis v. Rawhide Gold Mining Co.113 P. 898 (Cal. Ct. App. 1910)
Freeman v. Seitz58 P. 690 (Cal. 1899)
Griswold v. Pieratt42 P. 820 (Cal. 1895)

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.