Borton v. Weeger

BURROUGHS, J.,

pro

tem.

This is an action upon a promissory note. Plaintiff was awarded judgment and the defendants appeal.

The complaint alleges that on July 25, 1924, the defendants executed and delivered to plaintiff the following promissory note;

[553]

“$17,993.67 Los Angeles, Cal., July 25, 1924.

“Two years after date and for value received, we promise to pay to Walter Borton or order at Los Angeles, California, the sum of Seventeen Thousand nine hundred ninety three 67/100 Dollars, with interest from date until paid, at the rate of six (6%) per cent per annum, payable semi-annually. Should the interest not be so paid, it shall become a part of the principal, and thereafter bear like interest as the principal. When the building located at 420 South Westlake avenue is sold half of this note shall be paid at the close of such sale, and when the furnishings and lease in said building are sold, the other half shall be paid at the close of such sale. If both are sold the full amount of this note, with secured interest, shall be paid from the proceeds of such sale.”

The answer admits the making of the note, but alleges that it was given without consideration. By a cross-complaint defendants seek to recover the sum of $3,920.98, alleged to be a balance of rent unpaid. By answer to the cross-complaint the plaintiff denied the indebtedness.

The court found that the promissory note was made and executed as alleged in the complaint; that the plaintiff is the owner and holder thereof; that the building mentioned in the promissory -note, and the furnishings mentioned therein, have been sold; that the only sum paid on said note was $1,079.62 interest; that the amount due and unpaid at the date of the judgment was $20,392.41; that defendants on or about February 11, 1924, were the owners of the building and premises known as the Regina Hotel, situated at 420 South Westlake Avenue, Los Angeles City; that defendants have sold said premises, together with the furniture and fixtures contained therein; that on February 11, 1924, plaintiff and defendants entered into a lease of the premises described, but that on July 25, 1924, said lease was canceled by mutual consent of the parties and since said date has been of no binding force or effect; that it is not true that there is any rental due the defendants from the plaintiff. Judgment was therefore entered in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of said promissory note.