Legal Opinion

Hobson v. Hassett

California Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 1888No. 11296PublishedCited by 26 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C. C.

This action was brought to recover the amount due on a promissory note which reads as follows:—

“September 7, 1881. “$1,135. One day after date, without grace, we promise to pay A. D. Hobson or order the sum of eleven hundred and thirty-five dollars, payable only in gold coin of the government of the United States, for value received, with interest thereon in like gold coin, at the rate of ten per cent per year from date until paid. “A. Hassett, President.”

The court below found that prior to the year 1878, the Grangers’ Business Association of Healdsburg was duly organized as a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
  2. Stackpole v. ArnoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
  3. Pentz v. StantonNew York Supreme Court · 1833
  4. Tucker Manufacturing Co. v. FairbanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
  5. Carpenter v. FarnsworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Hall v. JamesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. First State Bank v. MussigbrodMontana Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Smith v. Royal Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Keokuk Falls Improvement Co. v. Kingsland & Douglas Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1896
  5. Janes v. Citizens BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1900

21 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