Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

54 Cal. 107

Sackett v. Johnson

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1880

California Supreme Court · decided 1880-07-01

Wheeler, J. The Court below, in addition to the finding quoted in the opinion, found that “ at the time of the delivery of said note to plaintiff, she did not pay any value therefor, nor at any time part with anything of value, or assume any new obligation as a consideration for the indorsement and delivery to her of said note.” The statement on motion for a new trial specifies that the evidence was insufficient to sustain this finding. The note was executed June 9th, 1874.

Relies on Payne v. Bensley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1926

7 state decisions

2018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Department No. 2, Sharpstein, J.:

¶1This is an action of an indorsee against the maker of a promissory note.. The defense is, that there was no consideration for the making or for the indorsement and transfer of the note. The Court found that there was no consideration for the execution or delivery of the note; but further found “ that on the 12th day of July, 1874, and before the maturity of said note, the said Bolinger (the payee) indorsed and delivered said note to the plaintiff as security for a pre-existing debt of about nineteen hundred dollars, due from said Bolinger to said plaintiff.”

¶2In the absence of any finding or evidence that the plaintiff had notice of the want of consideration as between the maker and payee, the only question to be determined is, whether the plaintiff, in good faith, in the ordinary course of business, and for value, acquired the instrument indorsed to her ? In other words, is she an indorsee within the definition of § 3123 of the Civil Code?

¶3It is urged, on behalf of the defendant, that the element of value for the indorsement is wanting, and that the transfer of the note as security for a pre-existing indebtedness of the indorser to the indorsee does not fulfill the requirement of the law in respect of value. In this State, that cannot be regarded as an open question. It has been held in Payne v. Bensley, 8 Cal. 266; Robinson v. Smith, 14 Id. 98; Naglee v. Lyman, 14 Id. 454; Frey v. Clifford, 44 Id. 342, and Davis v. Russell, 52 Id. 611, that a pre-existing indebtedness of the indorser to the indorsee constitutes a valuable consideration for the indorsement and transfer of a negotiable instrument. We do not think that subd. 28 of § 14 of the Civil Code, as originally adopted, changed the rule which had previously prevailed upon this question. Besides, it is our understanding that the clause relied *110upon by the appellant was repealed by the amendments of 1873-4, which took effect before the date of the transfer of the note in this case.

¶4The order granting a new trial is affirmed.

¶5Thornton, P. J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

/54/cal/107 · .json · Public domain