Beebe v. Brooks
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Ninth District, County of Siskiyou. This was an action brought to recover a sum of money due on a promissory note, and for a decree of sale of certain personal property pledged for the payment of the note. The action was against the maker and indorser; the note was indorsed after it fell due. The cause was tried in the Court below without a jury, and the Court found as a fact, that Herzog, the indorser, had no notice of the dishonor of the note.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Ninth District, County of Siskiyou. This was an action brought to recover a sum of money due on a promissory note, and for a decree of sale of certain personal property pledged for the payment of the note. The action was against the maker and indorser; the note was indorsed after it fell due. The cause was tried in the Court below without a jury, and the Court found as a fact, that Herzog, the indorser, had no notice of the dishonor of the note. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, against Brooks, the maker, and a non-suit as to Herzog, the indorser. Plaintiff appealed from…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
The assignment of errors by the appellant in this case raises but one question, that is, whether, if a note be indorsed after it is due, the indorser is entitled to demand and notice, before he is liable to his indorsee ? The authorities, it is conceded, are not consistent. But we think that the weight and number are both in favor of the affirmative of this proposition. It would be a useless and almost an endless task to review them all. Mr. Parsons, in his recent work on Contracts, takes this view of the question. Parsons on Cont., 2 vol., p. 231, note.
We think that the rule should be as…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. Caro & BaumOregon Supreme Court · 1881
- McMonigal v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 1888