From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rich v. Davis

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1856
6 Cal. 141 (Cal. 1856)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Nevada.

         COUNSEL

          Buckner & Hill, for Appellant.

          Robinson, Beatty & Sackett, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt. Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         This was an action brought on certain promissory notes. The main defense is, that the notes were made by one partner in the firm name, but for his own private uses.

         This defense would be good against a holder with notice of the fraud. But it is found by the District Court as a fact, that the plaintiff is an innocent holder, in which case the recovery cannot be defeated. The principle involved we decided in this case when it was here before. (See 4 Cal. 22.)

         The remaining defense rests upon the claim of certain payments. As to these, the Court below finds that they were adjudicated upon as set-offs in another suit between the same parties. This is sufficient to prevent their consideration a second time.

         Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Rich v. Davis

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1856
6 Cal. 141 (Cal. 1856)
Case details for

Rich v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:RICH v. DAVIS

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 1, 1856

Citations

6 Cal. 141 (Cal. 1856)

Citing Cases

Randall v. Hunter

D. H. Chamberlin, and G. W. Hunter, for Respondents.          When a note is given in the name of the firm by…

Bedell v. Herring

The former decisions of this court seem to be in the direction of holding that in such a case payment cannot…