Haskell

Haskell v. Cornish

Good Law
1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 254
California District CourtOctober 15, 1857California370 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Norton, J.

This is m rotiosn founded on a promissory note, made by the defendants, in which th& defense set up is that the note is not •«individual promise, but was -signed by them as trastees, and on behalf of an association, The First African Methodist Episcopal Church. R appeared that Cornish tod Lewis executed this note as trustees of this aggoefctioa, and oa behalf of the 'whole board, end that they then Selivsrad it to ms Beséis, who' was to have obtained the signature of *255 another member of the board previeras to the delivery of the note. This he failed to do, and the plaintiff, in whose possession it now is, brings this action upon it, against the two makers whose names appear.

After it came into plaintiff’s possession the defendant, Cornish, saw it and remarked, " it’s all right,” or something to that effect. Lewis does not seem to have seen or recognised the note, in. any manner, after its delivery to Harris. There is no proof, as far as he is concerned, that would raise the presumption of an implied assent on his part, for it is not shown that he ever saw the note, or heard, or knew anything about it after Harris took it for the purpose mentioned. The plaintiff introduced no…

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.