Ziel, Bertheau & Co. v. Dukes
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth District, County of San Francisco. This was a bill to set aside a judgment upon the ground of fraud, and for an injunction restraining the collection of the judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth District, County of San Francisco. This was a bill to set aside a judgment upon the ground of fraud, and for an injunction restraining the collection of the judgment. The facts are thus stated by the Court: “ It appears that Dukes executed a note for $3,000, in favor of Jacobs, on the twentieth of October, 1857, payable on 6 demand, after date.’ “ Suit was commenced on this note on the nineteenth of November, and judgment taken on the first of December. “ Plaintiffs, who are judgment creditors of Dukes, seek to set aside this judgment as fraudulent. No actual fraud is…
1Opinion of the CourtTerry, C. J.
Neither of the points in this case are well taken.
The note was presently due, and it was not necessary to show any actual demand to enable Jacobs to recover.
“ If a note be made payable at sight, or at ten days after sight, or in ten days after notice, or on request or on demand in all these and the like cases, the note will be held valid as a promissory note, and payable at all events, although, in point of fact, the payee may die without ever having presented the note for sight, or without giving any notice to, or made any request or demand upon the maker for payment. But the law, in all…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hull v. MyersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- Bond v. PachecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Halleck v. MossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Hewett v. DeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- National City Finance Co. v. Lewis, Civ. 6702 (1931)California Court of Appeal · 1931