Dingley

Dingley v. McDonald

Good Law
124 Cal. 682·1899 Cal. LEXIS 1048·57 P. 574
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 6, 1899S. F. No. 1412California1,997 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Action to recover judgment against defendants as stockholders of the Pacific Bank, upon its indebtedness to the Exchange National Bank of Spokane (referred to hereafter as the Spokane hank), plaintiff’s assignor. Several causes of action were set forth in the complaint, but one of which is here on appeal. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from the order denying motion for a new trial defendant J. M. McDonald appeals. Appellant contends that the assignment of the claim to plaintiff Avas without authority, and that as he had no interest in the claim at the commencement of the action he cannot recover. The complaint was filed May 18, 1896. The court found that on that day the Spokane hank “assigned and set over to plaintiff, for the purpose of collection, all its claim and demand against said Pacific Bank .... arid all right of action for said sum, and plaintiff is now the owner and holder thereof.” This finding is challenged as not supported by the eAddence. It seems that several of the creditors of the Pacific Bank made assignments of their claims in one instrument to plaintiff. This instrument on behalf of the Spokane bank was executed in the following terms: “Exchange…

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.