Drexler

Drexler v. McGlynn

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 625·99 Cal. 143·33 P. 773
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 25, 1893No. 15006California803 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

This is an action against the defendants as executors of the last will and testament of James M. Donahue, deceased, upon a promissory note indorsed by their testator September 10, 1889.

The note became due March 10, 1890. Donahue died on the third day of March, 1890, leaving a will in which the defendants were named as executors, and which was filed in the superior court on the eleventh day of March, 1890.

It is claimed that the estate is not liable because no proper notice of protest was given, but we think the point is not well taken. The notice was addressed to “Messrs. Peter J. Mc-Glynn and J. F. Burgin, Jr., administrators of the estate of J. M. Donahue, deceased,” and it was deposited in the post-office on the day the note became due. The Civil Code provides that a notice of dishonor may be given, in case of the death of the party otherwise entitled to notice, to one of his personal representatives, or if there are none, then to any member of his family, and if there be no family, it must be mailed to his last place of residence. (Sec. 3145.) Appellants contend that, inasmuch as the defendants had not been appointed by the court at the time the notice was given, they were…

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.