Mudgett v. Day
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth District, County of Sacramento. This was an actión upon a promissory note made by the defendant and payable to the plaintiff or bearer. The note was dated on the twenty-first of September, 1857, and by its terms was to become due on the first day of January, 1858. The suit was commenced on the first of February following.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth District, County of Sacramento. This was an actión upon a promissory note made by the defendant and payable to the plaintiff or bearer. The note was dated on the twenty-first of September, 1857, and by its terms was to become due on the first day of January, 1858. The suit was commenced on the first of February following. The defense set up was, that one Charles D. Humphries was the owner and holder of the note, and that he had agreed with defendant, prior to the maturity of the note, for a valuable consideration, to extend the time for the payment of the same, which…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Day made his note to Mudgett or bearer, for $278. It seems that the plaintiff put this note in the possession of one Humphries, and before it was due, as his agent, Humphries made an agreement, in his own name, with Day, for 1,272 pounds of barley, “ to be credited on Mudgett’s note in Humphries’ hands.”. It appears that Day after-wards had express notice of the character in which Humphries acted ; that he requested Humphries to extend the time of payment, which Humphries told him he had no authority to do. The inference from *140this is, that he considered the contract with Humphries not…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Stetson v. BriggsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Norton v. OverholtzerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Davis v. TrachslerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Barrios Co., Inc. v. J.R. Garrett Co.California Court of Appeal · 1925
- Cottle v. CrockettCalifornia Superior Court · 1922