Judson v. Atwill
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco. This action was brought on four several promissory notes, executed by the defendant. The notes are payable to the “ order of E. Judson,” but are described in the schedule of debts and liabilities, annexed to the defendant’s petition in insolvency, as drawn in “ favor of Mr. Farnum,” without further particulars.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco. This action was brought on four several promissory notes, executed by the defendant. The notes are payable to the “ order of E. Judson,” but are described in the schedule of debts and liabilities, annexed to the defendant’s petition in insolvency, as drawn in “ favor of Mr. Farnum,” without further particulars. On the trial, evidence was introduced, tending to prove the delivery of the notes to Farnum, as agent of the plaintiff, and ignorance of the real creditor, by the defendant, when the notes were…
1Opinion of the Court
Field, J., after stating the facts of the ease, delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., and Burnett, J., concurring.
The third section of the Insolvent Act requires the petitioner to give, in his schedule, “ the names of his creditors, if known and the twenty-fourth section restricts his release and discharge to debts and liabilities specified in the schedule. The requirements of the act must be strictly followed; a failure to comply with its provisions will deprive the petitioner of its benefit. (Cheever v. Hays, 3 Cal.; McAllister v. Strode et al., 7 Cal.) In the case at bar, the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rycraft v. RycraftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871