Meyerholtz

Meyerholtz v. Paxton

Good Law
1907 Cal. App. LEXIS 10·7 Cal. App. 237·94 P. 78
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 26, 1907Civ. No. 404.California1,079 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

This is an action to foreclose a lien on certain personal property, given to secure the payment of a promissory note.

The note in suit was the last of several renewal notes given the plaintiff for a loan which was made in the year 1895. It was dated January .1, 1902, and was drawn in favor of plaintiff, and signed by the defendant B. W. Paxton (a son of the deceased) in his own name. In addition to these facts the complaint also alleges that, at the time of making the note, as security for the payment thereof, a certificate for one hundred shares of stock in the Santa Rosa Bank, standing in the name of H. H. Paxton, was delivered to plaintiff by B. W. Paxton, after making the following indorsement, on the back thereof: “H. H. Paxton by B. W. Paxton, her attorney in fact. ’ ’ The complaint further alleges that in signing the note in his own name, and in hypothecating the stock, he was act ing for and on behalf of H. H. Paxton, the deceased, pursuant to a power of attorney, authorizing him to borrow money in such sums and on such terms as might seem to him best, and to pledge therefor any of the property of said H. H. Paxton. A ratification is also alleged as follows: that said H.…

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.