Hudgens v. Chamberlain
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Campbell, Metson, Drew, Oatman & Mackenzie, for Appellant. Morrison & Brobeck, Morrison, Cope & Brobeck, and Edward Hohfield, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants on demurrer sustained to the amended complaint of the plaintiff.
The second amended complaint alleged that plaintiff was indebted to F. 0. Chamberlain on a promissory note in the sum of twelve thousand dollars and that as collateral security for the payment of said note plaintiff pledged to said Chamberlain five thousand shares of the capital stock of the Florence- Goldfield Mining Company under a written contract authorizing Chamberlain, at any time after default in the payment of said note, to sell said stock or any part…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades CouncilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- People v. SchmitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- Boyson v. ThornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Napier v. Central Georgia BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
- German-American State Bank v. Spokane-Columbia River Railroad & Navigation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Wade v. Markwell & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
- Ferro v. Citizens National Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Tracy v. Stock Assurance BureauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Baird v. OlsheskiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Horn v. KlattCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.