Legal Opinion

Meyer v. Weber

California Supreme Court

Decided August 13, 1901No. Sac. No. 872PublishedCited by 37 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

The Woodbridge Canal and Irrigation Company, a corporation, being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $3,280, on July 28, 1894, executed to the plaintiff its promissory note for that amount, and, to secure the same, at the same time executed its mortgage upon a tract of land in San Joaquin County, and also, at the same time, as further security, indorsed and assigned to the plaintiff the note and mortgage in suit. The note reads as follows: —

“$1,963.66. Woodbridge, Cal., May 28, 1894.
“Ten years after date, we promise to pay to the Woodbridge Canal and Irrigation Company, or order, the sum…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Toby v. Oregon Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Phelps v. MayersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Nagle v. MacyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  4. Adams v. SeamanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. ThorntonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Cornish v. WoolvertonMontana Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Farmers' Nat. Bank of Tecumseh v. McCallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  3. National Hardware Co. v. SherwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Glenn v. RiceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Metropolis Tr. & Sav. Bank v. MonnierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API