Conner v. Clark
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth District, County of Sacramento. This was an action brought upon a promissory note in the words following: “ $700. Sacramento, Dec. 26th, 1856. “ On or before the first day of November, 1857, next ensuing, I promise to pay to the order of Henry Conner, seven hundred dollars, for value received. “ ROBERT C. CLARK, Trustee.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth District, County of Sacramento. This was an action brought upon a promissory note in the words following: “ $700. Sacramento, Dec. 26th, 1856. “ On or before the first day of November, 1857, next ensuing, I promise to pay to the order of Henry Conner, seven hundred dollars, for value received. “ ROBERT C. CLARK, Trustee.” On the trial, defendant offered to show that the agreement at the time he made it was, that he was not to be personally liable, but that the payment was to be made out of a trust fund, of which he was trustee. This evidence was rejected by the Court as…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
The defendant made his promissory note, signing it “ R. C. Clark, Trustee.” On the trial he offered to show that the agreement at the time he made it was, that he was not to be personally liable, but that the payment was to be made out of a trust fund, of which he was trustee. This evidence was rejected by the Court as inadmissible, and the defendant appeals.
It will be perceived, that the tendency of the proffered testimony was, in effect, to deny to the note the obligation it imported. The evidence proposed alters so far the contract as it appears, as to show that instead of Clark’s being…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Frink v. RoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Melone v. RuffinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Robinson v. Springfield Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1885
- Andrus v. BlazzardUtah Supreme Court · 1901
- Charles Nelson Co. v. MortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.