Folsom v. Bartlett
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. This suit was brought by Folsom, as indorsee of two promissory notes, each for $975, dated August 1st, 1850, made by Bartlett, payable, at sixty and ninety days, to the order of one Buckelew, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff, subject to a credit of $550, paid to Buckelew on the 19th of October, 1850. Defendant pleaded, first, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. This suit was brought by Folsom, as indorsee of two promissory notes, each for $975, dated August 1st, 1850, made by Bartlett, payable, at sixty and ninety days, to the order of one Buckelew, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff, subject to a credit of $550, paid to Buckelew on the 19th of October, 1850. Defendant pleaded, first, a general denial. Second, that the notes were indorsed to the plaintiff after maturity; that the consideration of the notes was an agreement between Buckelew and the defendant, by which the latter purchased of Buckelew a lot…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Murray
Upon the trial of this cause, the Court below held that the facts that the notes upon which the suit was brought were given in consideration of a conveyance of real estate, to be made by the plaintiff’s indorser; upon the payment of the last note, and that the indorser had never made or tendered such conveyance, constituted no sufficient defence. This case comes clearly within the rule laid down by this Court, in the case of Osborn et al. v. Elliott. The covenant in the bond to convey, and the promise to pay the notes, must be taken as dependent agreements. The notes were indorsed after…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hill v. GrigsbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- McPherson v. WestonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Hunt v. GlassellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920