In interpreting rules of appellate procedure similar to Utah's, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that when an appeal is taken from a final judgment, "[t]here is no requirement that the notice designate intermediate orders which are to be raised as issues on appeal." Rourk v. State, 170 Ariz. 6, 821 P.2d 273, 280 (Ct.App. 1991); see Jerstad v. Warren, 73 Or. App. 387, 698 P.2d 1033 (1985) (holding to the same effect under an Oregon statute which reads similarly to our rules). II. INDEMNITY AGREEMENT AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
" (Emphasis in original).See also Kerstad v. Warren, 73 Or. App. 387, 698 P.2d 1033 (1985); Alair Aviation v. Campbell, 58 Or. App. 409, 411, 648 P.2d 1339 (1982). We approve of the Oregon Court of Appeals cases which hold that a final judgment need not be embodied in a single document.
Other jurisdictions have permitted enforcement of an assigned promissory note without negotiation.Fore v. Bles, 149 Ariz. 603, 721 P.2d 151 (1986); Griffith v. Griffith, 250 Ark. 845, 467 S.W.2d 737 (1971); Pay Ctr., Inc. v. Milton, 632 P.2d 642 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981); Hazel v. Tharpe Brooks, Inc., 159 Ga. App. 415, 283 S.E.2d 653 (1981); and Jerstad v. Warren, 73 Or. App. 387, 698 P.2d 1033 (1985). RCW 62A.3-201(3) and U.C.C. § 3-201 comment 8 require a transferee who takes without an endorsement to offer proof of acquisition, which creates a presumption the transferee is entitled to recover on the instrument.
An exception to the possession requirement exists under HRS § 490:3-804, where lost, destroyed, or stolen instruments are involved.See Guaranty Bank Trust Co. v. Dowling, 4 Conn. App. 376, 494 A.2d 1216 (1985); Castellano v. Bitkower, 216 Neb. 806, 346 N.W.2d 249 (1984); Jerstad v. Warren, 73 Or. App. 387, 698 P.2d 1033 (1985). A "transferee," as contrasted to a "holder," may sue on an instrument.