# McDonald v. Randall

> California Supreme Court · June 9, 1903 · 139 Cal. 246

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3298612

## Case

- **Full name:** MARGARET H. McDONALD, Plaintiff and Appellant, and EEL RIVER AND EUREKA RAILROAD COMPANY, Intervener and Appellant, v. A. W. RANDALL Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 9, 1903
- **Citations:** 139 Cal. 246; 72 P. 997; 1903 Cal. LEXIS 812
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Beatty
- **Judges:** Henshaw, Shaw, Beatty, McFarland
- **Cited by:** 24 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3298612

## Opinion text

BEATTY, C. J., dissenting.
I dissent. There .is no, consideration for the mortgage of a married worn an ’sXsep arate property to secure her husband’s promise to pay an outlawed debt.
The bank took the assignment with notice, or with what is equivalent to notice, of the invalidity of the mortgage. •: The vice-president of the corporation and its secretary _ and cashier, both of whom were present and acting on behalf of the bank when the assignment was taken, knew that the mortgage had been made by Mrs. McDonald upon her separate property to secure an antecedent debt' of her husband. This knowledge is imputed to the bank, and was sufficient
*257
to put it upon inquiry. Inquiry of Mrs. McDonald would have disclosed the whole truth, and the neglect
to make it
leaves the bank charged with notice of all it could have learned if such inquiry had been made. (Civ. Code, see. 19.)
The judgment should be reversed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3298612. Public record. Not legal advice.