Coles v. Soulsby

Citations

• 21 Cal. 47

Syllabus

<p>Accokd and satisfaction, as a defense to an action for the recovery of money, must be specially pleaded.</p> <p>A denial, whether general or special, only puts in issue the allegations of the complaint. The difference between a general and special denial in this respect is only in the extent to which the allegations are traversed.</p> <p>New matter must be specially pleaded; and whatever admits that a cause of action, as stated in the complaint, once existed, but at the same time avoids it—that is, shows that it has ceased to exist—is new matter.</p> <p>Piercy v. Sabin (10 Cal. 22) and Glazer v. Cliff, (Id. 303) as to the necessity of pleading new matter in defense, affirmed, and held to have overruled the doctrine of Gavin v. Annan (2 Cal. 494) and McLarren v. Spalding (Id. 510).</p> <p>The provision of the “ Act defining the Eights of Husband and Wife,” that a married woman cannot make any sale or other alienation of her separate property, except by an instrument in writing, has reference to property other than money. It does not contemplate that every time a married woman pays her money for articles purchased she must execute an instrument in writing in order to make a valid transfer of the money.</p> <p>The consideration clause of a deed is not conclusive. It estops the grantor from alleging that he executed the deed without consideration. It cannot be contradicted so as to defeat the operation of the conveyance according to the purposes therein designated, unless it be upon the ground of fraud; but with this exception it is open to explanation, and may be varied by parol proof.</p>