Coonan v. Loewenthal
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Humboldt County setting off judgments pro tcmto. E. W. Wilson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This is an appeal taken by Mary Coonan from an order setting off certain judgments against each other pro tanto.
The validity of the order is presented under this state of facts: On May 31, 1896, plaintiff, J. F. Coonan, brought an action against Loewenthal to recover something over seven thousand dollars, alleged to be due plaintiff from defendant for professional services rendered by plaintiff as attorney at law, and on August 27, 1897, plaintiff obtained a judgment for five thousand dollars and costs. This judgment plaintiff, on the same day of its entry, assigned to his wife, the appellant…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- North Chicago Rolling Mill Co. v. St. Louis Ore & Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- McKean v. German-American Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Nashville Trust Co. v. BankTennessee Supreme Court · 1892
- St. Louis Natl. Bank v. GayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Haskins v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Harrison v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Erlich v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Arp v. BlakeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- City Investment Co. v. PringleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Wade v. SchraderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.