Grangers' Business Ass'n v. Clark
Citations
- 84 Cal. 201
- 23 P. 1081
Syllabus
<p>Pleading — New Matter in Answer — Replication. — A replication traversing new matter alleged in the answer is unnecessary, and has no place in our system of pleading; hut such new matter must, on the trial, he deemed controverted by the opposite party.</p> <p>Id. —New Matter in Avoidance oe Answer — Evidence. —The plaintiffs must he considered to have pleaded any new matter in avoidance of a counterclaim or affirmative defense set up in the answer, and may give evidence of such matter in avoidance.</p> <p>Id. — Foreclosure of Mortgage — Plea of Payment — Evidence of Agreement in Avoidance — Application of Payments. —In a suit to foreclose a mortgage upon real estate, where the defendant pleads payment of the mortgage note out of the proceeds of the sale of a crop of defendant’s wheat, upon which plaintiff held a chattel mortgage to secure the same note, plaintiff must be deemed to have pleaded in avoidance of such defense an agreement that the grain, when harvested, should be held as security for other advances made and to be made to and for the defendant, and that the proceeds of the sale of the grain should be applied first in payment of such advances, and the remainder, if any, to the payment of the note; and the court may receive evidence in support of such agreement.</p> <p>Statute of Frauds—Oral Agreement—Mortgage on Crop — Pledge of Harvested Crop for Advances — Extinguishment of Mortgage.— Section 2922 of the Civil Code, requiring a writing to create, renew, or extend a mortgage, does not render incompetent a verbal agreement to divert harvested grain from the satisfaction of the debt secured by a chattel mortgage on the growing crop, and to convert the grain into a pledge to secure other and subsequent advances from the mortgagor to the mortgagee. Such agreement does not create a chattel mortgage, but operates to extinguish the mortgage on the crop.</p> <p>Foreclosure of Mortgage — Allowance of Attorney’s Fee.—The trial court is in duty bound to allow on
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that the misdemeanor designation of OCGA § 40-5-120 (4) is the default penalty provision for driver's license violations
- setting out possible bases for federal preemption, including direct conflict, conflict with the “purposes and objectives” of Con- gress, and “field” preemption
- “[I]llegal immigrants have never been recognized as a suspect class in constitutional analysis.” (citing Plyler, 457 U. S. at 223 (III) (B))
- driver may defend against charge of driving without license “by offering other evidence, tangible or testimonial, that he had a valid license, from Georgia or another jurisdiction, at the time he was stopped, to rebut the presumption”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gibson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.