Schoen v. Houghton
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twentieth Judicial District, County of Santa Clara. On the 3d of August, 1871, L. Pellier gave A. C. Farno or order his promissory note for five hundred dollars, payable one year after date. On the 1st of September following, he gave Farno of order another note for the same sum, payable fifteen months after date. Prior to June 13, 1872, Farno executed to Pellier a full release in writing of every claim he had against him.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Twentieth Judicial District, County of Santa Clara. On the 3d of August, 1871, L. Pellier gave A. C. Farno or order his promissory note for five hundred dollars, payable one year after date. On the 1st of September following, he gave Farno of order another note for the same sum, payable fifteen months after date. Prior to June 13, 1872, Farno executed to Pellier a full release in writing of every claim he had against him. Pellier died on said last named day, leaving a will. The defendant became the administrator of his estate, with the will annexed. After the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
We are of opinion that the circumstances attending the assignment to the plaintiff of the note of September 1, 1871, as found by the court below, are not, under the rules applicable to the transfer of negotiable paper, sufficient to impugn the title of the plaintiff as being a bona fide holder for value.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Morgan v. Reasor Corp.California Supreme Court · 1968
- Witty v. ClinchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Smith v. ArmstrongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Wilson's Adm'r v. HoltSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890