Pacific Bank v. Stone
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. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action on promissory note for the sum of fifteen hundred and fifty dollars.- Plaintiff had judgment, from which, and from an order denying motion for new trial,, defendant *203appeals on statement of the ease. Defendant pleaded a contract for professional services as attorney at law rendered plaintiff, by which “plaintiff agreed to cancel and deliver to defendant the note set forth in the complaint and to extinguish said indebtedness.” By way of cross-complaint defendant alleged what in .effect was a claim on quantum meruit, but he withdrew his cross-complaint and waived all claim…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wickersham v. CrittendenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Blood v. La Serena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Underhill v. Santa Barbara Land, Building, & Improvement Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Main v. CasserlyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Pixley v. The Western Pac. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1867
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Kelly v. Citizens Finance Co. of Lowell, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Tobin v. Commissioner of BanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Corporation of America v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Stockwell v. BarnumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- Berry v. Maywood Mutual Water Co. Number OneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.