Woodsum v. Cole
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Promissory Note — Transfer after Maturity— Title of Transferee. — The transferee of a promissory note, after its maturity, is not an indorsee in due course of business, and does not acquire an absolute title thereto, so that it is valid in his hands, notwithstanding a defect in the title of 'the transferer.
Id.—Action by Holder—Ownership and Right of Possession—Evidence. — To entitle the holder of a promissory note to maintain an action thereon, he must be the legal owner, and have the right of possession, and his ownership must be sufficient to protect the maker from a subsequent recovery against him.' In such an action, the defendant may show that the plaintiff paid no consideration for the note and is not the legal owner of it.
Id.—Estoppel—Evidence.—On a review of the evidence, held, that the defendant was not estopped to dispute the ownership of the note by the plaintiff.
Belcher, C. C. This is an action to recover the amount due on a promissory note.
The' plaintiff sues as indorsee of the note, and the defendant, by his answer, denies that the plaintiff has any right or title to the note, or any interest in the money due thereon; and alleges that one A. C. Wood-[143]sum, the payee named therein, is the owner of the note and entitled to receive payment thereof, and that before the commencement of this action and since, he had directed the defendant not to pay the same to any person other than himself; and further, that A. G. Woodsum had extended the time of payment, and the note was not due or payable when the action was comfnenced.
It appears from the record that the note was dated October 2, 1880, and was payable to the order of A. C. Woodsum, ninety days after its date. It was really the property of Abby F. Woodsum, wife of the payee, and shortly after he received it he indorsed it in blank and delivered it to her. She retained it for some time, and then delivered it back to him, to hold and collect as her agent.
Afterward, about the 10th or 12th of March, 1881, at his request, and while he was holding the note, V. B. Woodsum indorsed his name upon the back of it, and A. C. Woodsum then borrowed some money of other parties, and used the note as collateral security. This loan was paid, and the note returned. After that, A. C. Woodsum delivered the note to V. B. Woodsum, and directed him to see Cole, the maker, and get the money due on it if he was ready to pay, but he gave him no authority to institute any action upon it. V. B. Wood-sum reported that he had seen Cole, and that Cole had no money just then, and was not ready to pay. Subsequently, but before this action was commenced, A. C. Woodsum saw Cole, and told him he could have until January 1, 1883, in which to pay the note.
No consideration ever passed from V. B. Woodsum to A. C. Woodsum for the note, but while he held it, as above stated, he delivered it to his wife, who is the plaintiff here.
The plaintiff was called as a witness in her own behalf, and testified that she received the note in March or April, 1881, and that ever since then it had been in her [144]
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)