Klockenbaum v. Pierson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. The note was as follows: “ $350. Marysville, December 9th, 1858. Three months after dqie, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of S. M. Bliss the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars, with interest at the rate of three per cent, per month, till paid, from date. (Signed) O. H. Pierson.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. The note was as follows: “ $350. Marysville, December 9th, 1858. Three months after dqie, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of S. M. Bliss the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars, with interest at the rate of three per cent, per month, till paid, from date. (Signed) O. H. Pierson.” Bliss, immediately upon the execution of the note, endorsed it in blank and delivered it to Pierson, who negotiated it—Bliss being an accommodation indorser. The notice of the Notary, left with the wife of Bliss at his residence, was as follows; “ To S. M.…
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
Cope, J. concurring.
This is an action upon a promissory note, against both the maker and indorser. Judgment was rendered against the maker and in favor of the indorser, and the only question presented on the appeal is, whether there was sufficient notice of the dishonor of the note to charge the latter. The note matured on the twelfth of March, 1859, and on the evening of that day the Notary left at the residence of the indorser— who was Absent at the time—a notice describing the note, and stating that it was protested by him for non-payment, and that the holder looked to the indorser for…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hewel v. HoginCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Dore v. ThornburghCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Wiener v. H. Graff & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
- Bean v. LoryeaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Bank v. DibrellTennessee Supreme Court · 1892