TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Beeman v. Lovett

T. BEEMAN v. WILLIAM E. LOVETT

Beeman v. Lovett, 46 Cal. 387 (1873)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1873
Docket
No. 3,844
Citations
46 Cal. 387
Syllabus
Promissory Note Without Consideration. — If a person delivers to his agent a promissory note, with the place for the name of the payee left blank, with directions lo fill up the blank with the name of a bank, and have the note discounted at the hank, and with the money pay another note on which the principal is indebted, and if the agent fills the blank with the name of the person holding such other note, and delivers him the same in payment of the other note, the agent violates his authority, and tie note is without consideration and is void in the hands of the payee.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, Couufcy of Monterey. In June, 1867, the defendant gave his promissory note to Julia Cameron for six hundred dollars, payable one year thereafter. The note was placed in the hands of one McCarthy, as an agent of both parties, for the payment of the interest. In April, 1868, the defendant, intending to leave the State and desiring to provide for the payment of the note, made a second note, with the name of the payee left blank, and handed it to McCarthy, with directions to discount it when the first should become due, at the Bank of California, and take up the first note. The defendant then left the State. Instead of presenting the note at the bank, McCarthy filled up the blank, by inserting the name of Mrs. Cameron as payee, and then delivered both notes to Mrs. Cameron. The second note was assigned .to the plaintiff, to enable him to bring this action. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court:

Mrs. Cameron, the payee of the note sued upon, gave no value for it; her assignee, the plaintiff here, holds it for her, and for the mere purpose of instituting this action.

The Court below erred upon the facts found in holding that McCarthy had authority from the defendant to deliver the note to the assignee of the plaintiff in satisfaction of the note of 1867, or for any other purpose.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1900: 11904: 11922: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Green v. Soule78 P. 337 (Cal. 1904)
  2. State v. Weber191 N.W. 610 (N.D. 1922)
  3. Magnusson v. Linwell82 N.W. 746 (N.D. 1900)

Most recent

  1. State v. Weber191 N.W. 610 (N.D. 1922)
  2. Green v. Soule78 P. 337 (Cal. 1904)
  3. Magnusson v. Linwell82 N.W. 746 (N.D. 1900)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list