Haskell v. Cornish
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Twelfth District. To the facts stated in the opinion it may be added, that the Court below refused the following instructions asked by defendant : 1. That if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the notes on which this suit is brought were given by defendants, bona fide, as “ Trustees of the First African Methodist Episcopal Church,” for work, labor, and material furnished by, and services due, Stokes by the Church, then the plaintiff is not entitled to…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Twelfth District. To the facts stated in the opinion it may be added, that the Court below refused the following instructions asked by defendant : 1. That if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the notes on which this suit is brought were given by defendants, bona fide, as “ Trustees of the First African Methodist Episcopal Church,” for work, labor, and material furnished by, and services due, Stokes by the Church, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action. 2. If the jury believe, that at the time the notes were signed the defendants had authority from…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Field, J. concurring.
Suit below on a promissory note in this form :
*47“ San Francisco, April 5, 1855.
Eight months after date, we, the undersigned, Trustees of the First African Methodist Episcopal Church, in behalf of the whole Board of Trustees of said Association, promise to pay to Darius Stokes, or order, four hundred and ninety-eight and seventy-five one hundredth dollars, with interest at three per cent, per month, payable monthly till paid, for value received by said Association.
(Signed,) Henry C. Cornish,
John C. Lewis.”
The main question depends upon the construction of this instrument. Is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Stackpole v. ArnoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Thacher v. DinsmoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Clark's Executors v. Van RiemsdykSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- Rossiter v. RossiterNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Mott v. HicksNew York Supreme Court · 1823
3Cited by11 opinions
- Meyer v. Glenmoor Homes, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Von Schmidt Dredge Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- Love v. Sierra Nevada Lake Water & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1867
- Smith v. Royal Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Hall v. CrandallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.