Valentine v. Donohoe-Kelly Banking Co.
Before: THE COURT.
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
THE COURT.
This appeal is by the defendant corporation from the judgment and an order denying its motion for a new trial.
The facts are substantially as follows: Prior to January 24, 1896, a certain copartnership existed under the name and style of “ Francis and Valentine.” T. B. Valentine, plaintiff’s testate, was, at all times during its existence, a member of said firm. The said copartnership did its banking business with defendant. Prior to March, 1896,' the said copartnership became indebted to defendant upon seven promissory notes aggregating $33,975.85, which notes were executed by the said copartnership to said T. B. Valentine, and by him indorsed and transferred to defendant. On February 8, 1896, the said Valentine assigned to defendant a certain note and mortgage made to him by the Belvedere Land Company, of the value of fifty thousand dollars, as security for the payment of all of said promissory notes, of all sums due by said copartnership to defendant, and of all advances that might thereafter be made by said defendant to said firm. On January 24,1896, the members of the said copartnership incorporated under the corporate name of “Francis-Valentine Company,” the corporation becoming the successor in business of the former co-partnership. The account current of the copartnership with defendant was closed, and on March 2, 1896, the corporation —Francis-Valentine Company—opened an account with defendant, depositing on said date, to its credit, $1,220. At the time of so opening said account with the defendant by the corporation, — Francis-Valentine Company, — the said T. B.
[193]
Valentine made a new agreement with defendant, that the fifty-thousand-dollar note and mortgage should continue to be held by defendant as security for the said seven notes, and also for all indebtedness and loans then existing, and for all future advances that might be made by defendant to said Francis-Valentine Company. The transactions by defendant with the copartnership may therefore be considered eliminated from the case, and are only stated for the purpose of clearly showing the circumstances leading up to the contract by which the fifty-thousand-dollar mortgage was transferred and delivered to defendant by said Valentine in his lifetime. After March 2,1896, the said Francis-Valentine Company continued its account current with defendant, in which account the monthly interest on the seven notes was charged to the Francis-Valentine Company. The interest upon the said notes was payable monthly, and during the existence of the copartnership, and before the incorporation of the Francis-Valentine Company, it had been charged by defendant to the copartnership. In fact, the same arrangement continued as to the security, notes, advances, and overdrafts after the incorporation of the Francis-Valentine Company as before, except that the account was kept with the new corporation instead of the former copartnership. No change had been made as to the arrangements herein narrated, up to October 27, 1896, at which time Valentine died. The defendant received knowledge of the death of Valentine on the same day. At the time Valentine died, the Francis-Valentine Company had a credit of $201.07 'in its account current with defendant. After the death of Valentine, defendant presented a claim against his estate for the principal of the seven notes, in which claim no interest was included. It is therefore evident that at the time of the death of Valentine the interest upon the notes had been fully paid.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)