Case ID: cal_6/html/0141-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RICH v. DAVIS.
    A promissory note made in the firm name of a partnership, hut for the private uses of the partner making it, is binding on the firm, in the hands of an innocent holder, though not in the hands of one having knowledge of the fraud. The finding of the District Court on the question of knowledge of the fraud, and as to the question of payment, will not he disturbed when the cause comes up a second time for consideration.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Nevada.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
    
      Buckner & Hill for Appellant.
    
      Robinson, Beatty & Sackett for Respondent.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

This was an action brought on certain promissory notes. The main defence is, that the notes were made by one partner in the firm name, but for his own private uses.

This defence would be good against a holder with notice of the fraud. But it is found by the District Court as a fact, that the plaintiff is an innocent holder, in which case the recovery cannot be defeated. The principle involved we decided in this ease when it was here before. See 4 Cal. R.

The remaining defence rests upon the claim of certain payments. As to these, the Court below finds that they were adjudicated upon as set-offs in another suit between the same parties. This is sufficient to prevent their consideration a second time.

Judgment affirmed.