Legal Opinion
Stansfield v. Dunne
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided June 23, 1914No. Civil No. 1381PublishedCited by 3 opinions
’APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. Wm. F. Cooper, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
The appellant, who was the plaintiff below, brought her action against the appellees, defendants below, in general assumpsit on the common count for money lent without giving the date of any of the loans. The allegations were:
“That the plaintiff lent to the defendants, at their request, at different times, divers and sundry sums of money amounting in the aggregate to $600, which the defendants promised to repay on demand; that the plaintiff duly demanded payment of the same from the defendants; that the sum of $15 was paid by the defendants, and no more, leaving a balance of $585 still owing…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Allen v. . PattersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Pleasant v. SamuelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Grannis v. HookerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Backus v. ClarkSupreme Court of Kansas · 1863
- Wise v. HoganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Huish v. LopezArizona Supreme Court · 1950
- Proto v. ChenowethArizona Supreme Court · 1928
- Shill v. JonesArizona Supreme Court · 1920