Garwood v. Simpson

Citations

• 8 Cal. 101
• 1857 Cal. LEXIS 306

Syllabus

<p>A draft or order by A on B, to pay 0, or order, the balance due A by B, is not a negotiable security, not being for any fixed sum, but if endorsed by B, “ balance due, one thousand two hundred and ninety-three dollars and seventy-five cents,” over his signature, it becomes a promise by B to pay C, or his order, that sum, and is negotiable.</p> <p>Where, in such a case, B was garnisheed in a suit against C, the day before he made the endorsement, but failed to inform 0 thereof, and C, for a valuable consideration, sold the order, as endorsed, to D, an innocent purchaser: Held, that B, having made the order negotiable, and put the same in circulation, is estopped from setting up against it, any antecedent matter, and is liable to D for the full amount thereof.</p> <p>And where the order was on a firm, and such an endorsement .was made by one of the firm, it operated as a release of the firm, by the holder, and as an acceptance by the partner endorsing.</p> <p>The party in whose favor a judgment is rendered on a special verdict, must move for a new trial if he is not satisfied with the verdict, as the latter must otherwise be conclusive upon the facts in the appellate Court.</p> <p>Per Murray, G. J., dissenting.—Such an endorsement does not constitute an acceptance, under the circumstances, but only a memorandum of the amount due the drawer of the order.</p>