Pownall v. Hall

         Admitting that, in consequence of one of the legal tender notes which was paid as a part of the redemption money being counterfeit, in the absence of fraud, would that invalidate the redemption?

         The allegations of the complaint are not sufficient to entitle plaintiff to the relief demanded, on the ground of fraudulent representations. The complaint charges fraud in general terms, and does not state the facts constituting the fraud. It simply states that the defendant, " by false and fraudulent representations induced this plaintiff to believe that he had redeemed of plaintiff," etc. The complaint does not state the nature and character of the representations; nor does it show that defendant knew that any representation made to plaintiff by him was false; nor that defendant knew that the legal tender note was counterfeit; nor does it specify any fact which tends to show a fraudulent intent on the part of the defendant in the whole transaction. Fraud must not be charged in general terms; but the facts constituting the fraud must be specifically set forth in the complaint. (Castle v. Baden , 23 Cal. 75; Kent v. Snyder , 30 Cal. 666; Oakland v. Carpentier , 21 Cal. 641.) Where the general charge of fraud is based upon false suggestions, fraudulent concealment, and misrepresentations, the acts of fraud and misrepresentation on which the general charge is based must be specified in the complaint, or it will not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Semple v. Hager , 27 Cal. 163.)

         We contend that such short payment would not of itself make redemption void. There is no principle of equity that would require that such a redemption should be held to be void as long as the plaintiff has a complete and adequate remedy at law. All that the plaintiff can ask is, that he should be paid his hundred dollars to make good the counterfeit legal tender note. He can sue Hall, the defendant, for that amount; and if it be proven that the note was counterfeit he will certainly receive judgment for that amount. As long as Hall is not insolvent, and is able to pay the hundred dollars, the plaintiff has no grounds to ask that the redemption should be set aside. (Dickinson v. Gilliland, 1 Cowen, 481.)

         OPINION          By the Court:

         The complaint does not aver that the defendant, when he paid the redemption money to the plaintiff, knew the counterfeit one hundred dollar legal tender note to be spurious, and the general allegation of fraud in effecting the redemption is too vague to be considered. We must, therefore, assume, for the purposes of this decision, that the counterfeit note was paid in good faith. But it is well settled that a payment in counterfeit notes, even when made in good faith, is no payment, for the reason that the notes were of no value, and were paid and received under a mistake as to their true character. For the same reason a payment consisting in part of spurious notes is bad pro tanto, and to that extent is no payment. The defendant's effort to redeem was, therefore, ineffectual, inasmuch as a considerable portion of the amount required to effect the redemption was paid in a counterfeit note. There was no valid redemption, and prima facie the plaintiff is entitled to be relieved in a Court of equity from the consequences of the mutual mistake under which the parties labored, as to the character of the note, and to be placed in statu quo on returning the money which he received. But if the defendant was a qualified redemptioner and attempted in good faith to redeem within the proper time and was prevented from perfecting a valid redemption only by an innocent mistake in respect to the true character of the spurious note, and if in his answer he shall set up these facts and ask to be relieved from the consequences of the mistake and to be allowed to perfect the redemption on payment of the one hundred dollars and interest, it will be competent for the Court to grant the relief. The case falls within that branch of equitable jurisdiction by which Courts of equity administer relief in cases of mistake, on such terms as may be just.

         Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with an instruction to the Court below to overrule the demurrer to the complaint.