¶1—I concur. In addition to the grounds stated by Me. Justice McKee I attach some importance to the circumstance of payment being demanded of the agent of Jones, who had authority to and did execute this note in the name of Jones. In Philips v. Astling, 2 Taunt. 206, it ivas held if the drawee of a bill went abroad, leaving an agent in England with power to accept bills, that a bill so accepted by such agent must be presented to him for payment, if the drawee continued absent. If the drawee had accepted the draft himself and then góne and continued abroad, that would have excused presentation to him. And although it does not appear that the agent Avho accepted said draft for the drawee had any authority to pay it, or to do more than accept it for said drawee, Lord Mansfield held that in order to charge the indorser, said draft must be presented to the agent aaJlo accepted it.
64 Cal. 410
Luning v. Wise
Decided December 29, 1883
California Supreme Court · decided 1883-12-29
<p>Pbohissoby Note — Pbesentment and Demand—When Excused. — One of the joint makers of a promissory note executed in this State resided in Kentucky at the time of the execution and maturity of the note, his name being signed thereto by the other joint maker under a power of attorney. The note was duly presented to the resident maker at maturity, and payment thereof demanded. The action was against an indorser upon the note who defended on the ground that the note had not been presented to tlio non-resident maker, and payment demanded of him. Held, that such presentment and demand were not required to charge the indorser,</p> <p>.—Indobsement — Consideration—Pbesuhbtion. — In the absence of evidence on the subject, the presumption is that the note was indorsed for a valuable consideration before maturity.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1915
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1883-12-29
View the full empirical analysis of this case →