PILSTER v. HIGHTON

PILSTER v. HIGHTON. No. 14,510; November 26, 1892. 31 Pac. 580. Promissory Note.—A Complaint on a Note Alleging its date and execution, and promise to pay ninety days therefrom by defendant maker, and a transfer by indorsement to plaintiff, and nonpayment by defendant, states a sufficient cause of action. APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. Action by Henry Pilster against Henry E. Highton. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed. The following is the complaint referred to in the opinion: “The plaintiff complains, and alleges: (1) That on the first day of March, 1890, at San Francisco, state of California the defendant, by his promissory note, promised to pay to Otto Kloppenburg or order $330.45, with interest, ninety days after date; (2) that the same was, by the indorsement of the said Otto Kloppenburg, transferred to the plaintiff; (3) that the defendant has not paid the same nor any part thereof. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the sum of $330.45, with interest from March 1, 1890, and for the costs of this action. W. W. McNair, Attorney for plaintiff.” Indorsed: “Filed February 7, 1891. Wm. J. Blattner, Clerk. By J. J. Grief, Deputy Clerk.” Walter H. Linforth for appellant; W. W. McNair for respondent. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. This is an action upon a promissory note. The complaint was demurred to upon the grounds that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and was ambiguous and uncertain. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant given ten days to answer. He declined to answer, and thereupon judgment was entered against him, from which he appeals. The complaint was inartistically drawn, but we think it must be held sufficient. Judgment affirmed.