Legal Opinion

Cauhape v. Security Savings Bank

California Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 1899No. S.F. No. 1743PublishedCited by 17 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.

Plaintiff in his complaint, besides showing the corporate character of the bank defendant and the representative character of the other defendants, simply avers that the bank is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of three thousand and seventy-nine dollars and twenty cents for money had and received for the use of the plaintiff, for which due demand has been made, and that the other defendants, as executors of the estate of Cora L. Floyd, deceased, claim and assert some right, title, or interest in or to said money, which claim is without right, and plaintiff asks that such executors be…

2Cited by17 opinions

  1. Farrell v. City of OntarioCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  2. Bright v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Estate of Van DeusenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Union Oil Co. v. Reconstruction Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. People v. O'ConnorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

12 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