Howland

Howland v. Scott

Good Law
117 Cal. App. 275·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 568·4 P.2d 200
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 1931Docket No. 4304.California1,265 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Preston, J.

This appeal involves three suits brought on three promissory notes, and, also, three suits brought to cancel the same three notes for alleged fraud, not in the procuring of the three notes sued upon, but in procuring other notes • eventually taken up by the execution of the three notes sued upon.

The defense to the suit to cancel and rescind the notes is: First, that the holders took the same in due and ordinary course of business, without notice of the alleged fraudulent representations or other defenses; second, ratification by the makers of these notes after discovery of the alleged fraud; third, acceptance by the makers of these notes of benefits and considerations both before and at the time of the execution of the new notes, which have not been returned.

The record shows that John Scott, Jr., and James Ferguson were engaged in promoting a corporation known as the Great Western Lime and Cement Company. By order of the corporation commissioner certain shares in this corporation were impounded for their benefit as promotion stock, to be issued to them when they had sold a certain amount of the stock for cash. John Scott, Jr., and James Ferguson, being in need of money,…

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.