Coker & Taylor, Inc. v. Pruitt

[440]

TAPPAAN, J.,

pro

tem.

The Altadena National Bank appeals from a judgment entered as against it and its co-defendant Pruitt. Pruitt’s default had been entered before the trial was had below. The complaint herein alleges, in three counts, a cause of action arising from or under the terms of a certain order made by defendant Pruitt in favor of plaintiff and directed to and accepted by defendant Altadena National Bank. The three counts of the complaint merely state the same cause of action in three different forms. The answer of the Altadena National Bank is in the form of a general denial of the material allegations of the complaint. The order, a copy of which was set up in the complaint, reads as follows:

“December 2nd, 1926.

“Altadena National Bank,

“769 E. Mariposa,

“Altadena, Calif.

“ Gentlemen:

“You are hereby authorized to pay to the order of Coker & Taylor, Inc., plumbing contractors, the sum of $2,459.00 for plumbing materials and labor furnished and used in the construction of 4—8 apt and 2—2 apt buildings situated on Lot 2, Blk 31, Town of Glendale, and charge same to moneys received from the Sun Lumber Company out of Third Payment.

“R. F. Pruitt.

“Accepted:

“ Altadena National Bank,

“C. N. Newhall,

“Title. Cash.”

The facts as disclosed by the record presented here show that plaintiff and defendant Pruitt entered into a contract whereby plaintiff agreed to install certain plumbing in building to be constructed by Pruitt. The contract price for this work was agreed to be paid by three certain orders made and executed by Pruitt in plaintiff’s favor. Two of these orders, in the same amount were drawn upon defendant Altadena National Bank and accepted by it. One of these orders upon the bank was paid, and it is alleged that the other order was not paid, and it is the basis of this action. The plumbing contract was fully completed by plaintiff and