Johannsen

This is an action upon a promissory note, which with its indorsements, reads as follows: “$9,500.00 • .Bakersfield, California, April 29, 1922.

The defendants have appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and through the failure of appellants to perfect a bill of exceptions, this appeal rests entirely upon an inspection of the judgment-roll.

The first point urged by appellants is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This contention is based upon one paragraph of the complaint, reading as follows:

It is urged that this violates the rule laid down in Hall v. James, 79 Cal. App. 433 [ 249 Pac. 876 ], that one may not allege on information and belief facts which are peculiarly within his own knowledge, but unknown to the other party. This rule does not apply to such an allegation as the one in question. The note had been first assigned by the payee named therein to one Stetson, and the court found that it had been duly assigned and transferred to the plaintiff herein. While some of the facts in relation to these two transfers may have been within the knowledge of the plaintiff, it is by no means apparent that all of them…