Hamilton v. McDonald
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court of Placer. Plaintiff .began suit in a Justice’s Court at Forest Hill, Township No. 5, Placer county, by filing as his complaint the following note, to wit: “ 1150.00. Forest Hill, Jan. 10th, 1857. For value received; I promise to pay to James McDonald the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars sixty days after the date of this note, at three per cent, per month or until paid. (Signed.) John Renner.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court of Placer. Plaintiff .began suit in a Justice’s Court at Forest Hill, Township No. 5, Placer county, by filing as his complaint the following note, to wit: “ 1150.00. Forest Hill, Jan. 10th, 1857. For value received; I promise to pay to James McDonald the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars sixty days after the date of this note, at three per cent, per month or until paid. (Signed.) John Renner.” Endorsed, “ Forest Hill, April 17th, 1858. “ For value received, I hereby transfer the within note to J. C. Bower. James McDonald.” Also, “ Pay to Jo. Hamilton or order.…
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
Field, C. J. concurring.
This is an action upon a nonnegotiable promissory note. The note was assigned by McDonald, the payee, to one Bower, who assigned it to the plaintiff. The action is against the maker, and McDonald and Bower, assignors. McDonald was the only party served with process, and the defense is by him alone.
It is contended that as against McDonald the action cannot be maintained for want of privity. The answer to this objection is to be found in the provisions of the statute regulating the rights and *130liabilities of the parties. The fourth section of the Act of April, 1850,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lowe v. AlexanderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kendall v. ParkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Malson v. VaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863