First National Bank of Oakland v. Wolff

Alteration of Note—Immaterial Alteration.—A note is not avoided by immaterial alterations innocently made, which do not affect the obligation of the instrument, or change the meaning of the note.

Id. — Insertion of Rate of Interest. — If the insertion of a rate of interest in a note, to fill up a blank after its signature, was authorized, it would bind the maker. If not authorized, the note would bear interest at the legal rate, and the insertion of an unauthorized rate would not render the note void.

Accommodation Note—Collateral Security—Relevancy of Evidence. — In an action on an accommodation note, which was secured by aware-house receipt for grain, if the complaint alleges that the security had become valueless without the act or fault of the payee of the note, and that the grain had been removed, and was in litigation between third parties, it is proper and relevant to the issues to ask the one for whose accommodation the note was given in reference to his knowledge of the ownership and disposal of the grain; and the president of the plaintiff bank may properly testify as to inquiries made by him about the grain.

Id. —Evidence■—-Conversation. ■—■ Evidence of a conversation between the accommodation maker of a note and the one who received the money paid thereon, had after the discounting of a note by a bank, which was the payee, is not competent against the hank, if no one representing the bank is present; but if the hank proves such conversation by one of the parties thereto, the other party may testify regarding the conversation.

Evidence — Impeachment. — It is error to strike out the evidence of a witness called to sustain the reputation of another witness for truth, honesty, and integrity, against an attempted impeachment thereof, on the ground that the witness had never heard such reputation discussed, or talked with any one about it, if he states that he has known the witness personally for twenty-seven years, and knows what his reputation is, and that it is good.

Conduct of Trial — Order of Evidence — Discretion — Expert. — Allowing an expert to testify on behalf of defendant after he has rested his case, and plaintiff has introduced rebutting testimony, is within the discretion of the trial court, with which the appellate court will not interfere.

Judgment on Verdict—Directory Provision as to Time.—The failure of the clerk to enter judgment on the verdict within twenty-four hours after the verdict, as required by section 664 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not affect the validity of the judgment afterwards entered. The provision of the statute upon that subject is merely directory.