Splivallo v. Patten
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifteenth District, City and County of San Francisco. Defendants appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSprague, J.
Whether or not the facts stated in the answer would have constituted a valid defense to any portion of the plaintiff’s demand, had the plaintiff been the payee instead of the assignee of the note, is not necessary now to determine. It is very evident that a simple failure of consideration, in whole or in part, after a bona fide assignment thereof before maturity, will not avail the makers as a defense in a suit by the assignee of a promissory note, even though the assignee had full knowledge of the original consideration for which the note was given, prior to his purchase and receiving the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Bliss v. California Cooperative ProducersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Weber Showcase & Fixture Co. v. WaughDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1930
- The People's Bank v. PorterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Drukker v. Howe & Haun Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934
- Mann v. LeaskoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.