Caine

Caine v. Foreman

Good Law
106 Cal. App. 636·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 682·289 P. 929
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 23, 1930Docket No. 4130.California2,474 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Plummer, J.

The plaintiff, as assignee of the Credit Utility Corporation, obtained judgment in this action against the defendant as an indorser, in the sum of $6,000, balance due upon a promissory note for the principal sum of $10,000, executed by the Cox-Klemin Aircraft Corporation. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

Upon this appeal two grounds are relied upon by appellant as sufficient reasons for reversal: 1st. That there is no evidence that the note in controversy was, at the date of its maturity, presented to the Cox-Klemin Aircraft Corporation, the party primarily liable for payment, or that demand for payment was made of the corporation at maturity, or at any other time. 2d. That there is no evidence that the alleged presentation to the Bank of Manhattan Co., College Point, Long Island, was made by the holder of the note, or one authorized to receive payment.

The note involved in this action was expressly made payable at the Bank of Manhattan Co., College Point, Long Island. It was indorsed by the defendant and forwarded to Nathan A. Smyth in New York City, for the uses and purposes of the Cox-Klemin Aircraft Corporation in its financial transactions. The note is in the…

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.