Boyd v. Williston

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 215

Opinion

Norton, J.

held that Flint was the first endorser, and could not, therefore, maintain an action on the note against Williston, who was the second endorser. The plaintiff, taking the note after it became due, was in no better position than Flint. Parol evidence is not admissible, in an action on the note, to prove that Williston intended to become first endorser.

Judgment for defendant.