Himmelmann v. Hotaling
California Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Fifteenth District, City and County of San Francisco. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Fifteenth District, City and County of San Francisco. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion. No principle of commercial law is better settled, tban that negotiable paper, wbicb bad an original lawful inception and consideration as between tbe original parties, is not open to any defence existing between maker and payee, or intermediate endorsers or holders, in tbe bands of a bolder for value who acquired title to tbe paper before it became due, and without notice of its having been dishonored, dr that any defence existed against it at tbe time of tbe…
1Opinion of the Court
Speague J.,
delivered tbe opinion of the Court:
*113This was an action by an assignee against the drawer of of two checks, one for $500 and one for $1,200, payable to Charles Hanson or bearer. The checks were both drawn by defendant, and bore date and were delivered to Hanson on the 16th of December, 1868, for money which defendant held, belonging to Hanson. On the evening of the same day, after receiving the checks, Hanson lost them at a game of “ faro,” to one Briggs, to whom he immediately delivered them. On the next morning, December 17th, as soon as the banking office of the drawee was open,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gough v. StaatsNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Palmer v. GoodwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by11 opinions
- Griffin v. KempIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- La Due v. First National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Simpson v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Joppa v. Clark Commission Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Durnell v. SowdenUtah Supreme Court · 1887
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.