Druke v. Heiken

61 Cal. 346, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 613
California Supreme Court·Decided August 28, 1882·No. No. 8,259·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Druke v. Heiken, 61 Cal. 346, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 613 (Cal. 1882).

61 Cal. 346 (Druke v. Heiken) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hyman v. Tarplee
149 P.2d 453 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Union Supply Co. v. Morris
30 P.2d 394 (California Supreme Court, 1934)
Dellepiane v. Hynes
257 P. 180 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Mellor v. Bank of Willows
160 P. 567 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Wills v. Fuller
1915 OK 1113 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Hillman v. Young
127 P. 793 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1912)
Foley v. Harrison
136 S.W. 354 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)
Varley v. Sims
111 N.W. 269 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1907)
Edwards v. Wagner
53 P. 821 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
Leyson v. Davis
42 P. 775 (Montana Supreme Court, 1895)