Cordier v. Schloss

Citations

• 18 Cal. 576
• 1861 Cal. LEXIS 247

Syllabus

<p>Richards v. McMillan, (6 Cal. 419) holding that the omission, in a confession of judgment, to state the facts out of which the indebtedness arose, etc., strictly in accordance with the statute, does not render the judgment a nullity, but is simply prima facie evidence of fraud, affirmed.</p> <p>A statement, under the three hundred and seventy-fifth section of the Practice Act, for confession of judgment, to the effect that plaintiffs arc owners of a note, that the note was given for goods sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendants, and money had and received by defendants, is insufficient, and the judgment rendered thereon is prima facie fraudulent against creditors.</p> <p>A statement for confession of judgment, to the effect that the indebtedness is upon a note, etc., is insufficient. So, where the statement is that the indebtedness is for goods sold and delivered, and money had and received, it is insufficient in this: that it does not show the kind, or quantity, or price of the goods, or time of sale, or when the money was received, or under what circumstances, nor how much of the indebtedness is for money and how much for goods; and the judgment confessed is prima facie fraudulent.</p> <p>Whether each of the defects above named would be fatal to the judgment, not decided ; but the failure to state the amounts due, severally, for goods and for money would be fatal, just as such an averment is insufficient in an ordinary complaint.</p>