Garwood v. Simpson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco... Messrs. Carsen & Vance drew their order upon Messrs. Simp-son & Jackson. ' “Messrs. Simpson & Jackson, please pay the balance due on the hark Mew World’s cargo, to Edwin Tomlinson or order, and this shall be your receipt. “ Causen & Vance.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco... Messrs. Carsen & Vance drew their order upon Messrs. Simp-son & Jackson. ' “Messrs. Simpson & Jackson, please pay the balance due on the hark Mew World’s cargo, to Edwin Tomlinson or order, and this shall be your receipt. “ Causen & Vance. “ Eureka, March 5,1856.” On the fifteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, Tomlinson presented the order to Simpson, one of the firm of S. & J., who made this endorsement upon it: “San Francisco, April 15, 1856. “ Balance due on the cargo named…
1Opinion of the Court
Burnett, J., after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, J., concurring.
The first question arising under the state of facts in this case, is, whether the order was a negotiable instrument at the time it was executed by Carsen & Yance. It is objected that it was not a bill of exchange, because there was no sum certain stated, and it was payable out of a particular fund, and not generally.
It is well settled by all the authorities, that the first and principal requisite of a bill of exchange, is, that it must be for the payment of money only, and for a named sum certain.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Whitmore v. ShiverickNevada Supreme Court · 1867
- Allen v. FennonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Palmer v. AndrewsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1859