Mohr v. Byrne
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion. A. A. Sanderson, and Weil & Lippett, and T. J. Crowley, for H. I. Kowalsky, Intervener and Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
GRAY, C.
The intervener, Kowalsky, appeals from a judgment to the effect that he take nothing in the above-entitled action. The appeal was dismissed as to defendant Byrne, and the only parties respondent are the plaintiff, Mohr, and the defendant Moore (formerly Florence Blythe).
The record on appeal consists of the judgment-roll, from which it appears that the defendant Byrne made and executed to one Sol Ephraim her promissory note for twelve thousand dollars and interest, receiving as the only consideration thereof four thousand dollars in money. As security for the payment of this note,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wright & Co. v. LevyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Crosby v. TannerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- Duke v. ClarkMississippi Supreme Court · 1880
- Mohr v. ByrneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Hibernian Bank v. EvermanMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by10 opinions
- Cameron, SEC. of B. v. P. Bk. of MaytownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Crocker Nat'l Bank of San Francisco v. Byrne & McDonnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Briggs v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Helmer v. ParsonsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Wolf v. American Trust & Savings BankCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1914
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.