Summary
In De La Guerra v. Newhall the complaint alleged an express promise, and evidence of the wrongful taking of the property under an implied promise was held sufficient, and proof of an express promise to pay was unnecessary.
Summary of this case from Fountain v. City of SacramentoOpinion
Department One
Appeal by the defendant Pico, from a judgment for the plaintiff, in the Seventeenth District Court, County of Los Angeles. Sepulveda, J.
The action was brought upon a promissory note made by the defendants Serrano, and Bilderrain, and Pio Pico. All the defendants were served and their defaults duly entered, and judgment by default was entered by the clerk against the defendant Pico.
COUNSEL:
Cited Stearns v. Aguirre , 7 Cal. 443; Code Civ. Proc. §§ 585, 414; Chipman v. Bowman , 14 Cal. 158; Kelly v. Van Austin , 17 id. 566; Glidden v. Packard , 28 id. 652; Welsh v. Kirkpatrick , 30 id. 205; Willson v. Cleaveland, id. 198; People v. Evans , 29 id. 429; Chitty on Plead. (31) (33).
Glassell, Smith & Smith, for Appellant:
Hutton & Godfrey, for Respondent, made no argument.
OPINION By the Court (from the Bench):
On the authority of Stearns v. Aguirre , 7 Cal. 443, and cases subsequently decided, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.