McInerney v. Mack
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. E. P. Mogan, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
BEASLY, J., pro tem.
This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The complaint states simply that the defendant became indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of one thousand dollars for money had and received by the defendant for plaintiffs’ use and benefit.
The defendant answering denies that he became indebted to plaintiffs in said or any sum of money had and received by him for plaintiffs’ use and benefit, “or in any other manner or at all.” As a further defense he avers that on January 31, 1914, he received from plaintiffs the sum…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pacific Factor Co. v. AdlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Long Beach City School District v. DodgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Thomas v. AnthonyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Patent Brick Co. v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Ford v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Rice v. SchmidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Beasley v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Hanlon Drydock & Shipbuilding Co. v. G. W. McNear, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1924
- Kelly v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Krobitzsch v. MiddletonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.