22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T487,This action is upon three promissory notes made by defendant, Sherer, and judgment was rendered against him for the amount of the three notes. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial. The contest is only over the note for two hundred and sixty dollars and fifty cents mentioned in the first count of the complaint, except so far as certain general objections hereinafter stated to the validity of the judgment cover the whole case. We will briefly notice the main points made for reversal: Appellant delivered the note indorsed as aforesaid to one Fuller. It was delivered by Fuller to one Hawes, who was the manager of the company for which Fuller was acting, and by Hawes to respondent. Respondent became thus the legal holder of the note, with the right to bring an action thereon. It was like a note payable to bearer. (Curtis v. Sprague, 51 Cal. 239 .) The evidence shows, we think, that respondent ob *517 tained the note before its maturity, but there was ample proof of consideration. There are no other points necessary to be noticed. Judgment and order appealed from affirmed. Henshaw, J., and Temple, J., concurred.24:T4ac,

This action is upon three promissory notes made by defendant, Sherer, and judgment was rendered against him for the amount of the three notes. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial.

The contest is only over the note for two hundred and sixty dollars and fifty cents mentioned in the first count of the complaint, except so far as certain general objections hereinafter stated to the validity of the judgment cover the whole case. We will briefly notice the main points made for reversal:

Appellant delivered the note indorsed as aforesaid to one Fuller. It was delivered by Fuller to one Hawes, who was the manager of the company for which Fuller was acting, and by Hawes to respondent. Respondent became thus the legal holder of the note, with the right to bring an action thereon. It was like a note payable to bearer. (Curtis v. Sprague, 51 Cal. 239 .)

The evidence shows, we think, that respondent ob *517 tained the note before its maturity, but there was ample proof of consideration.

There are no other points necessary to be noticed.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed.

Henshaw, J., and Temple, J., concurred.

25:T6b8,