Legal Opinion
Barrell v. Lake View Land Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided September 20, 1898No. L. A. No. 364PublishedCited by 12 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. Walter Van Dyke, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
The plaintiff brought this action upon the following promissory note of the- defendant, which had been transferred to him before its maturity:
“$2,250. Los Angeles, March 22, 1894.
“Six months after Sate (without grace) I promise to pay to the order of Thomas F. Mitchell Co. twenty-two hundred fifty dollars for value received, with interest at-per cent per-until paid, both principal and interest payable only in United States gold coin. -
“[Seal] LAKE VIEW LAND CO.
“By F. E. Brown, President.
“W. A. Main, Secretary.”
*131The defendant denied the execution of the note, and alleged that the signatures…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Granger v. Original Empire Mill & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by12 opinions
- Chandler v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Cone v. KeilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Consumers Salt Co. v. RigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Lawrence v. Premier Indemnity Assurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Balfour-Guthrie Investment Co. v. WoodworthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.