More v. Finger

Citations

• 6 Cal. Unrep. 326
• 58 P. 322
• 1899 Cal. LEXIS 1164

Syllabus

<p>Replevin—Negotiable Paper.—Where Defendants Obtained possession of a note from one whom they knew had parted with his title thereto, plaintiff is entitled to recover possession thereof, without restoring to defendants any amount which they may have paid the pledgee of the note in order that they might fraudulently gain possession of same.</p> <p>Replevin—Negotiable Paper.—Evidence That Defendants were mutually engaged in the accomplishment of the common purpose of obtaining possession of a note, and did obtain possession of it by a deal made with plaintiff’s husband, who they knew had parted with all title to the note, and while he was intoxicated, is sufficient to support a verdict in favor of plaintiff.</p> <p>Conspiracy.—Circumstantial Evidence Tending to Prove a conspiracy is properly admissible, with the qualification that if a conspiracy is not shown such evidence may be stricken out on motion.</p> <p>Promissory Note—Holder in Due Course.—Receipts Indorsed on a promissory note, and signed by the payee, do not make the holder of the note the indorsee thereof, within the meaning of Civil Code, section 3124, providing that the indorsee of a negotiable- instrument, in due course, acquires an absolute title thereto.</p> <p>Promissory Note—Holder in Due Course.—An Instruction That if the jury believe that there was known, at the time of the transfer of a note, facts sufficient to arouse the suspicions of an ordinarily prudent person, then the purchaser of the note cannot defeat the title of the true owner, is immaterial, where it appears, without conflict, that the parties so purchasing the note are not indorsees of the note, and therefore received no better title than the assignor had.</p>