T. F. JOYCE, Respondent, v. WING YET LUNG, Appellant

[No. 13687. Department One.— January 5, 1891.] T. F. JOYCE, Respondent, v. WING YET LUNG, Appellant. Order — Verbal Acceptance — Evidence.—A written order given by a debtor to his creditor for the amount of his indebtedness, addressed to a person indebted to the drawer in a like sum, and verbally accepted and partly paid by the drawee, is admissible in evidence, together with proof of the verbal acceptance, in an action by the payee to recover the remainder of the indebtedness from the drawee, Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. L. F. Fisher, and C. C. Stephens, for Appellant. R. Dunnigan, for Respondent. [MAJORITY — De Haven, J.] De Haven, J. The findings show that Wing Yet Lung was on March 27, 1888, indebted to the firm of Joyce & Duncan in the sum of $643.30, and that firm being also indebted to the respondent in the same amount, they upon that day gave an order requesting the appellant to pay respondent the sum of $643.30. Said order was accepted by appellant, and he paid thereon the sum of $300. Judgment was rendered against appellant for the balance of $343.30, and his motion for a new-trial denied. Appellant’s acceptance of the order drawn against hi in by the firm of Joyce & Duncan was only verbal, and upon the trial he objected to the admission of the evidence showing such verbal acceptance, and also to the introduction of the order itself, upon the ground that such acceptance, riot being in writing, was not binding, and (hat the order itself was incompetent evidence without a written acceptance, and these objections, being overruled, are assigned as error. The court did not err in overruling appellant’s objection to this evidence. (Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 92.) The evidence is sufficient to support the findings, and we find no error in the record. Judgment and order affirmed. Garoutte, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.