Grogan v. Ruckle

• Decision Date: 01 December 1850
• Citation: Grogan v. Ruckle, 1 Cal. 158 (Cal. 1850)
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: GROGAN & LENT v. RUCKLE.

1 Cal. 158

GROGAN & LENT v. RUCKLE.

Supreme Court of the State of California

December Term, 1850

December 1, 1850

THE defendant Ruckle executed his promissory note on the first day of January, 1850, whereby he promised to pay on demand to Richard M. Harmer, or order, $1000, with eight per cent, per month interest until paid. The note was afterwards transferred by Harmer, and endorsed by him, as follows: "Pay to the order of Dr. Wm. H. McKee;" and was subsequently transferred by McKee, and endorsed by him, as follows: "Pay Alexander G. Grogan and William M. Lent." To the com- plaint, which was in the ordinary form of a declaration on a promissory note, the defendant pleaded the general issue, but did not annex to his plea an affidavit denying the genuineness of the endorsements, and did not, in any other way, deny their genuineness under oath. At the trial, the counsel for the defendant insisted that the plaintiffs could not recover without proving the endorsements, but the Court ruled otherwise, and the defandant excepted. Judgment having been rendered against the defendant, he brings this appeal.

R. A. Lockwood, for Plaintiffs.

John Currey, for Defendant.

By the Court, HASTINGS, Ch. J. This action was brought by respondents as endorsees and holders of a promissory note, executed by appellant in favor of one Richard M. Harmer, and by him endorsed to one William H. McKee, and by McKee endorsed to plaintiffs; and the only question submitted is, whether it was necessary, on trial, to prove the endorsements. The 62d section of the Practice Act provides, that "when any complaint or answer is founded on any instrument of writing which is alleged to have been signed by the party, the signature...