Ringel

Fashion Hat Frame Co. v. Ringel

Good Law
1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 888·81 Cal. App. 556·254 P. 275
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 2, 1927Docket No. 5673.California530 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

Plaintiff sued on a promissory note for one thousand dollars executed by defendant Ringel, made payable to Sam Malnick, and indorsed by him and by the other defendant. Plaintiff had judgment for the amount prayed for, together with interest and attorney’s ‘fees, and the defendant 'Sam Malnick has alone appealed on a bill of exceptions.

The note was assigned to Joseph Malnick by Sam Malnick for money advanced by the former to the latter for the benefit of defendant Ringel. It was presented to Joseph Malnick by Sam Malnick fully executed by Ringel and indorsed by defendant Semon and by Sam Malnick. Subsequent to the maturity of said note it was assigned and delivered for a valuable consideration by Joseph Malnick to the plaintiff.

The appellant specifies two particulars in which he claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment— because it does not show that the note was presented to Ringel on the day it became due, and because it shows failure to give the appellant notice of dishonor as required by law. Respondent insists that the judgment must be affirmed because this appellant waived demand and notice. This issue was raised by amendment to the complaint and…

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.