Clark v. Child
Citations
- 66 Cal. 87
- 4 P. 1058
- 1884 Cal. LEXIS 693
Syllabus
<p>Pleading—Answer.—'Written Release—Admission op Genuineness—Estoppel.—Where a defendant sets forth in his answer a written release as a bar to the plaintiff’s cause of action, and on the trial introduces evidence showing that such release had never been delivered, he is estopped from ■ claiming the benefit of the admission arising out of the plaintiff’s failure to deny by affidavit the genuineness and due execution of the instrument.</p> <p>Written Instrument—Execution—Delivery:—The execution of a written instrument includes its delivery.</p> <p>Instructions—Reversal.—A judgment will not be reversed for an error in the giving or refusing of instructions, if the losing party could not have been prejudiced thereby.</p>
Judges: McKinstry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Le Mesnager v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-03-03· cited 29×
- Ivey v. Kern County Land Co.California Supreme Court· 1896-12-03· cited 25×
- Brovelli v. BrovelliCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1963-02-14· cited 4×
- Smith v. CareyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1965-11-29· cited 1×
- McAndrew v. SowellSupreme Court of Kansas· 1917-03-10· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.