Hall v. Thurston

California Supreme Court Dec 14, 1917 No. L. A. No. 4053.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff, as the holder of the promissory notes, was entitled to recover because the defendant failed to plead or prove that he had paid the notes prior to receiving notice of their transfer to the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the notes were transferred to the plaintiff's predecessor for value.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of an alleged agreement between the defendant and the payee.
Whether the defendant's alleged payment to the original payee constituted a valid defense against the current holder of the notes.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“possession of the notes by plaintiff, duly indorsed by the payee therein named, and upon which no payments appear to have been made, was as to plaintiff a sufficient prima facie showing to establish his right to recover thereon.”

“no such equities or agreements were pleaded and no tender made by answer of any issue under which the document was admissible in evidence.”

“It is not alleged, however, that payment was made before notice of the transfer.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. A. J. Buckles, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

VICTOR E. SHAW, J.,

pro tem.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff' upon two promissory notes made by defendant, payable to his own order and by him indorsed and delivered to the International Security Company (a corporation), of which one Newton J. Skinner was at the time president.

The complaint alleges that after their maturity the notes were for a valuable consideration transferred by said corporation to said Skinner, who thereafter, for value, transferred them to one George C. Smith, by whom they were delivered to plaintiff. The answer admits the making and delivery of the notes to the International Security Company for a valu

[740]

able consideration, and as a defense to the cause alleges that at all the times mentioned the notes were the property of said corporation and that ‘1 Skinner falsely and fraudulently secured possession thereof”; that no transfer-of the same was made by said corporation, and “that prior to the commencement of the action plaintiff paid to said International Security Company the entire indebtedness represented by said promissory notes, together with interest thereon.”

Upon the ground of want of sufficient evidence to sustain the same, appellant attacks the finding that after the maturity of the notes they were for a valuable consideration transferred to and became the property of Newton J. Skinner. In the absence of want of consideration pleaded for the making of the notes we are unable to perceive the materiality of the finding so far as it concerns defendant. However, conceding it to be material, possession of the notes by plaintiff, duly indorsed by the payee therein named, and upon which no payments appear to have been made, was as to plaintiff a sufficient

prima facie

showing to establish his right to recover thereon. In addition to this fact there was evidence tending to show that the notes were, by resolution of the board of directors of the International Security Company, ordered transferred in settlement of an account known as the Magee account, in which Skinner had some- interest, which transfer so made by the president of the company appears to have been ratified by the board of directors of which defendant was a member present and acting in the transaction.

Hall v. Thurston

AI Brief

Synopsis

VICTOR E. SHAW, J.,

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief