Cox v. Delmas
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The principal facts are stated in the opinion: The record discloses a written agreement between Cox and the executors of the Eeese estate, dated September 7,1880, and which was executed avowedly to supply the place of a lost agreement between Cox and Arnold and Michael Eeese, and which shows that on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1868, there was sold under execution to certain Chinese creditors of Cox and Arnold all the rights of Cox and Arnold in the cause of action, in…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
This is an action to recover a certain sum of money alleged to have been collected by defendant as attorney-*117at-law of plaintiff. The case was tried with a jury, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff for a little less than the amount sued for; aud defendant appeals from, the judgment and from an order denying a new trial.
The main features of the case are these: Prior to May, 1888, respondent had been engaged continuously for several years in litigating, as plaintiff, in the courts of this state, the suit of Cox v. McLaughlin, which suit had been brought to recover a large amount…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Felton v. Le BretonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Parrott v. ByersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- McDowell v. MilroyIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by55 opinions
- Oasis West Realty v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Pierce v. LymanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.