Pugh

Pugh v. Dawson

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 572·95 Cal. App. 505·273 P. 39
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 15, 1928Docket No. 3587.California4,726 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hart, J.

The brief of counsel for the plaintiff contains a correct general statement of the facts of the case and the proceedings at the trial culminating in the rendition of judgment for the plaintiff and we herein adopt said statement, which is as follows:

The note declared upon is in the following language:

The appellant contends that the note is a nonnegotiable instrument for two reasons: 1. Because of the following provision contained therein: “The makers, sureties, guarantors and indorsers of this note hereby consent to extensions of time at or after the maturity hereof.” (Italics ours.) 2. Because it contains a provision for attorney’s fees in case the note was turned over to an attorney for collection by suit or otherwise. The specific contention as to the proposition first stated is that the agreement obliging the maker or indorsers or others who might become obligors in some form or another on the note to consent to the postponement of the payment of the obligation to some future time or times after its maturity renders the time of payment uncertain and undeterminable, and the instrument, therefore, non-negotiable. (Civ. Code, secs. 3055 and 3265.)

We cannot acquiesce in that…

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.