Burnstein

Burnstein v. Simmonds

Good Law
1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 309·86 Cal. App. 697·261 P. 496
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 15, 1927Docket No. 5949.California843 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants to recover on a promissory note. The defendants appeared and answered and also filed a cross-complaint. The cross-complaint was answered and a trial was had in the trial court before the court sitting without a jury. The trial court made findings responsive to each and all of the issues and ordered judgment for the plaintiffs. From a judgment entered thereon the defendants have appealed and have brought up a bill of exceptions.

The defendants contend that on the findings as made the judgment should have been in their favor. That contention is based on facts which we will proceed to recite.

On the twenty-eighth day of November, 1917, Vernon Cruikshank delivered to John W. Sharpe his promissory note in the sum of $6,000, due ninety days thereafter, with interest at eight per cent, and pledged as security for the payment thereof 5,000 shares of the capital stock of the Tungsten Mines Company. Said note was indorsed on the reverse side by John W. Sharpe, Frank Simmonds, B. J. Genereux, and Elmer Cole, and thereafter it was delivered to D. W. Glenn together with the collateral security. On December 6, 1920, that note had not…

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.