Johannsen v. Klipstein

BARNARD, J.

This is an action upon a promissory note, which with its indorsements, reads as follows: “$9,500.00 • .Bakersfield, California, April 29, 1922.

“On or before July 1, 1922, after date, for value received, I, we, or either of us, promise to pay John V. Bock or order, at First National Bank of Bakersfield, in Bakersfield, California, the sum of Nine Thousand Five Hundred 00/100 Dollars, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from maturity until paid, interest payable . . . , and if not so paid to be compounded annually and bear the same rate of interest as the principal. . . .

“T. E. Klipstedst,

“C. E. Lucas,

“C. F. Johnson,

‘ ‘

Chas. Haberkern,

“Extended for 60 days.

“Pay to the order of Warren H. Stetson.

“Extended to April 10th, 1923, John B. Bock.

Balance due

“Date Principal Paid on Principal

“June 22 3000 6,500

“John V. Bock “Warren H. Stetson.”

The defendants have appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and through the failure of appellants to perfect a bill of exceptions, this appeal rests entirely upon an inspection of the judgment-roll.

[130]

The first point urged by appellants is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This contention is based upon one paragraph of the complaint, reading as follows:

“That plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges the fact to be that thereafter and prior to the commencement of this action, for valuable consideration, said note was duly sold, assigned, transferred and indorsed to the plaintiff herein, who is now the owner and holder thereof.”