Legal Opinion

Modoc County Bank v. Ringling

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 3, 1925No. 4426PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MORROW, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff in error, a California banking corporation, was defendant in the court below. Defendants in error are citizens of Montana, and were plaintiffs in the court below. For convenience they will hereinafter be designated as plaintiffs and defendant, as in the lower court.

Plaintiffs were copartners in 1922, engaged in the buying and selling of sheep and lambs.

The cause of action was for money had and received in 1922 by the Alturas State Bank to recover from the defendant, the successor of said bank, the sum advanced by plaintiffs and paid to the Alturas State Bank…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Brawley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Nash v. TowneSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  3. Merriam v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  4. People's Bank v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  5. Barreda v. SilsbeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1859

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Pioneer State BankNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1977
  2. Farmers' State Bank v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1932
  3. Kansas City Life Ins. v. ShirkCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931
  4. Greene County Nat. Farm Loan Ass'n v. Federal Land BankDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1944
  5. Newlands v. Calaveras Min. & Mill. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928

5 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