Fisk v. Miller
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from, an order refusing a new trial. The note in controversy was payable sixty days after date, and the plaintiff purchased it before maturity at a discount of seventy-five dollars, the note being for seven hundred and fifty dollars, with interest at the rate of one per cent per month.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from, an order refusing a new trial. The note in controversy was payable sixty days after date, and the plaintiff purchased it before maturity at a discount of seventy-five dollars, the note being for seven hundred and fifty dollars, with interest at the rate of one per cent per month. After the commencement of the action, the indorser tendered to the plaintiff an amount equal to the sum he paid for the note and the interest and costs which had then accrued, but the plaintiff refused to accept it. The…
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
The note in suit was made by the defendant Barker, indorsed before maturity at the request and for the benefit of Barker by the defendant Miller, and then sold by Barker to the plaintiff. Miller, by his act, became indorser, and liable as such. (Fessenden v. Summers, 62 Cal. 484.)
The averment in the complaint of presentment, demand, refusal, and notice we think sufficient. It is, “ that said note at maturity was presented to said George M. A. Barker for payment, and ^payment thereof demanded, but the same was not paid, of all which due notice was given to said defendant, Thomas S. Miller.”…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fessenden v. SummersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by2 opinions
- O'Conor v. ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Rockfield v. First National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1907