Landsberg

Placentia National Bank v. Landsberg

Good Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 125·38 Cal. App. 13·175 P. 22
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 30, 1918Civ. No. 2582.California458 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

By his complaint, which is in four counts, the plaintiff brought this action to recover upon four promissory notes, each of which was made payable to J. M. Thomas or order, and signed “Marcus Landsberg, by Nathan Lands-berg.” The defendant appeals from the judgment.

It is claimed that for three reasons the complaint does not state a cause of action: 1. Because the copy of the note set out in each count shows that it was not executed by the defendant as alleged in the complaint, but by Nathan Landsberg, and there is no allegation in the complaint that Nathan Landsberg had any authority to execute the note for or in the name of Marcus Laiidsberg. 2. Because there is no allegation in either of the four counts that the notes or either of them were ever delivered to the plaintiff. 3. Because the indorsements on each note set out in the complaint show that the same was not indorsed by J. M. Thomas, the payee, but, on the contrary, show in each instance the name of some person other than plaintiff following the name and indorsement of J. M. Thomas, and, therefore, that the indorsement made by J. M. Thomas must have been made to such other person and not to plaintiff.

The complaint in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.