L.A. Nat'l Bank v. Wallace
Before: Temple
Synopsis
Partnership—Bill Drawn by Partner Upon Firm—Notice of Dishonor—Demand.—In case of a bill drawn by a partner upon the firm or upon a partnership fund in the hands of another partner, notice of dishonor is not required; and if the drawer is a debtor, and the bill so drawn is for his accommodation, failure to make due demand will not release him, but he may recoup for any damage he may have suffered by failure to make a demand.
Id.—Recourse of Drawer Against Partnership—Demand and Notice. Where one of three partners has agreed to advance money to pay all bills drawn by another partner upon a third partner, the drawer having recourse against the partner who had agreed to pay the bills so drawn, and the drawer having no other interest in the partnership venture except a contingent interest in its success after the advances were repaid, and not being personally liable to repay them, the drawer cannot be considered as a debtor, and is entitled to demand and notice.
Id.—Excuse of Demand—Promise of Drawer Before Maturity.—Where the drawer, three weeks before the maturity of the bills, informs the holder that the drawee could not pay, but that he would pay the bills, such promise not having been made ten days before the maturity of the bills, as provided by section 3156 of the Civil Code, will not excuse presentment to the drawee and notice to the drawer.
Temple, C.— Babcock and one Collins owned some nursery stock, which included a large number of orange trees. Wallace was an experienced horticulturist.
The three purchased from Baldwin three hundred acres of land, believed to be well adapted to the growth of oranges. Nothing was paid on account of the purchase of the land, but it was conveyed to Babcock and Wallace, who gave a mortgage upon it to secure the pur[479]chase money. Collins was a banker, and did not wish to be known in the transaction, therefore every thing was in the name of Babcock and Wallace. Babcock and Collins were to put into the enterprise their nursery stock. The orange trees for planting the land purchased were to come from it, and the balance of stock to be sold, and the proceeds applied to the enterprise. Collins was to advance further money to pay expenses to the extent of thirty-five thousand dollars. Wallace was to manage the properties, and to receive a salary of sixty dollars per month. It was thought that it would take six years or perhaps longer to realize sufficient profit from the orchard to pay the purchase money, sixty thousand dollars, to repay Collins the advances made by him, and to pay Babcock and Collins for the nursery stock. Payments were to be made in the order above recited.
As Collins did not wish to be known in the transaction it was arranged that the money to be advanced by him should be obtained in this way: Wallace was to draw upon Babcock, payable as convenient; Collins would then cause the bills to be guaranteed, and, when due, paid by the California National Bank of San Diego, of which he was an officer.
When the land had been paid for and the advances made by Collins refunded, and the value of the nursery stock paid, the orange orchard was to be equally divided between the three parties.
On the seventh day of September, 1891, Wallace drew two bills upon Babcock, payable on December 1st to the plaintiff. They were duly represented to Babcock for acceptance, were accepted, and payment guaranteed by the San Diego Bank.
Some three weeks before the maturity of the bills it was understood that Collins and the bank which had guaranteed the bills were both insolvent, and Wallace informed plaintiff's cashier that he did not think Babcock had any means, or would be able to pay, but that he, Wallace, had means and would pay the bills.
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)