Legal Opinion

Ager v. Duncan

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1875No. 4763PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action on the following promissory note: “One day after date, for value received, I promise to pay to Mark Ager or order, the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars in U. S. gold coin, to bear interest at one per cent, per month, until paid. Í C E. L. Duncan.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action on the following promissory note: “One day after date, for value received, I promise to pay to Mark Ager or order, the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars in U. S. gold coin, to bear interest at one per cent, per month, until paid. Í C E. L. Duncan. “San Francisco, December3, 1873.” The court below found the following facts: “3. That the money for which said note was given was not the money or property of plaintiff, but of one B. C. Quigley, by wtiom it was given to plaintiff for the…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court:

1. It appears from the- findings--that the~note-sued~upon was-without consideration.

2. It does not appear that Quigley had any creditors to be defrauded. On the contrary, the inference from the seventh finding is that he had none. But if it be assumed that he had creditors, and that the note was given for the purpose of concealing from them the fact that he had an interest in the co-partnership, the findings show that Quigley and the plaintiff were in pari delicto in the fraudulent intent. The contract is executory, and the action is to enforce payment of the note given with this…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Farrar v. BartonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Severance v. Knight-Counihan Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Colby v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Hays v. WindsorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Berryman v. DoreIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Carver v. San Joaquin Cigar Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API