Druke v. Heiken
GEORGE DRUKE v. HENRY HEIKEN et ux.
Syllabus
Summary
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.
The Court :
If a promissory note payable to order and not indorsed, is the subject of a gift, causa mortis, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, for there is uncontradicted evidence that such a note was given by the decedent as a donatio causa mortis to Margaret Heiken, one of the defendants in this action. The authorities cited by respondent’s counsel are somewhat numerous, and all support their contention “ that a promissory note payable to order and not indorsed, is the subject of a gift causa mortis.”
Section 3101 of the Civil Code has not changed the rule in regard to the transfer of negotiable instruments payable to order by indorsement. The assignment of the note carried the mortgage with it.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.