Cascaden

Cascaden v. Weber

Good Law
294 F. 74·5 Alaska Fed. 197·1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2458
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 17, 1923No. 4093California1,420 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rudkin, J.

It appears from the allegations of the complaint in this case that on the 31st day of October, 1917, the defendant Weber borrowed the sum of $3,000 from the Farmers’ Bank of Fairbanks; that the plaintiff, Cascaden, and one Pettree, signed a promissory note given to the bank as joint makers with Weber for the amount so borrowed; that the money borrowed was for the sole use and benefit of Weber; that after maturity of the .note the plaintiff paid the same, together with $30 accrued interest; and that the defendant has not repaid the amount so paid to the plaintiff, or any part thereof. The proof does not sustain the allegations of the complaint in some respects. It appears from the testimony that on October 31, 1917, the defendant Weber and Pettree purchased the Tanana Bottling Works for the sum of $9,000 from one Ahlberg; that $3,000 of the purchase price was paid in cash; that $3,000 was paid from the money borrowed from the bank; and that the *199 balance of $3,000 is still due the seller, evidenced by a promissory note signed by the purchasers. It 'further appears that the original note was not signed by the plaintiff, but that he affixed his name thereto at maturity, and in…

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.