Herron v. Gear
Before: THE COURT. —
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. J. Trabueco, Judge presiding.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
[20]
THE COURT.
This is an action to recover the sum of $2,313.00 and interest, alleged to be due upon a promissory note executed by the defendant for said sum, payable six months after date to the order of himself, indorsed by him in blank, and delivered to one Wilkie L. Edwards. This note was given by the defendant in payment of a balance due upon the purchase price of three thousand shares of the capital stock of the Pacific Slope Securities Co., a corporation, of which at the time of the transaction said Wilkie L. Edwards was president. At some time after its execution Wilkie L. Edwards indorsed, and transferred the note to Lula Edwards Chase, who in turn indorsed and transferred it to the plaintiff in this action.
Practically the only questions arising upon this appeal turn upon the issues presented by the pleadings as to the nature of the transaction in the course of which the note was given, and as to the real parties in interest therein. The appellant asserted in his answer and insisted upon the trial that the transaction for the purchase of the stock of the Pacific Slope Securities Co., in part payment of which this note was given, was one between himself and the Pacific Slope Securities Co., and that the part which Wilkie L. Edwards took in that transaction was simply that of president and representative of that corporation; that he received the note in question in that capacity and in none other, and that the stock which was issued to the defendant and in part payment for which this note was given was the stock of the Pacific Slope Securities Co., owned by it at the time and issued to the defendant as its purchaser; and the defendant follows up these pleadings and proofs with the showing that before the note was due he went to the office of the corporation and there paid the whole amount of this note, which said payment the said corporation accepted, as he contends, either as payment in full of the amount due upon the sale of its stock, or as the trustee of Wilkie L. Edwards or his successors in ownership of this note; and that by such payment the liability of the defendant on account of this note has been fully discharged.
These contentions on the part of the defendant were resisted by the plaintiff upon the trial, in the course of which evidence was presented on behalf of the plaintiff tending strongly to show that the original transaction was one between Wilkie L. Edwards individually and the defendant; that the stock trans
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)