Andreson

San Bernardino National Bank v. Andreson

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 993·3 Cal. Unrep. 771·32 P. 168
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 1893No. 19,002California871 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

Defendants appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial. The complaint is in the ordinary form, upon a promissory note, which is set out, and is as follows:

The defendants answered, setting up two separate defenses. The first avers that the note was without consideration. The finding to the effect that there was sufficient consideration is fully sustained by the evidence.

The second defense was stricken out on motion of plaintiff, and this ruling is assigned as error. In this defense it is averred that the defendants, at the time of the execution of the note, were, and for a long time prior thereto had been, respectively, the president and secretary of the San Bernardino Fruit Company, a corporation, of which facts plaintiff had full knowledge; that, prior to the making of the note, plaintiff had agreed with the corporation to loan to it $2,000; that the money was so loaned and delivered to the corporation, and the note in suit was given to secure it, and for no other purpose; that plaintiff and its officers well knew the facts, and that the note was intended as and for the note of the corporation, and not as the individual'note of the defendants, and that it…

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.