History
  • No items yet
midpage
Smith v. Sparrow
13 Cal. 596
Cal.
1859
Check Treatment
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.) *598Sparrow 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.

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. Sparrow
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1859
Citation: 13 Cal. 596
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.