Lepori v. Hilson

STURTEVANT, J.

This action was brought to recover on a demand promissory note. The complainant pleaded in the ordinary form his cause of action. The defendant admitted the making of the note but denied all liability thereon and alleged that he executed the note as an accommodation to the plaintiff and on the promise that the plaintiff would hold the defendant harmless thereon and that there was no consideration for the note. The trial court made findings in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed and has brought up typewritten transcripts.

On November 15,- 1923, the date the note was executed, C. Lepori, Jr., was cashier of the First National Bank of Pittsburg, Cal. His father, O. Lepori, Sr., was president.

[297]

Seven men, including plaintiff and defendant, constituted the board of directors. On the afternoon and evening of the date last mentioned a special meeting of the board of directors of the bank was held. Before that meeting adjourned, each director executed to the bank his promissory note in the sum of $2,500. All of the notes aggregated the total sum of $20,000. While the bank held the notes Mr. Ellis, who had become its cashier, demanded payment from this defendant, but defendant refused payment. Thereafter, on October 17, 1924, the bank sold to C. Lepori, Sr., all of said notes and the purchaser sued this defendant on one of the notes so signed by him.

On the trial the defendant introduced parol evidence to prove his defenses. The plaintiff contends that such evidence, not related to consideration, should have been excluded. The defendant claims that it was properly introduced.

As stated above, the payee, the First National Bank of Pittsburg, demanded payment on the note while it was the owner thereof. For the purpose of transfer, that fact fixed the date of the maturity. (8 C. J. 408.) The note was assigned to plaintiff after the making of that demand. Moreover, as the note was made payable on demand, it was payable within a reasonable time. (Civ. Code, secs. 3082, 3088, 3266b.) As to what is a reasonable time is a mixed question of law and fact. Whether the circumstances show an unreasonable length of time is a question of fact to be found by the fact-finding body. Whether if true such circumstances amount to an unreasonable length of time is a question of law for the court.