Ephraim v. Pacific Bank
California Supreme Court
An assignment was offered in evidence from the plaintiff receiver to E. Schlessinger, made before the action was commenced, for the purpose of showing that the action was not brought in the name of the real party in interest. The assignment expressly conferred upon the assignee the right to prosecute and collect the allowance in the name of the receiver. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
COOPER, C.
Appeal from judgment and order denying a new trial.
In January, 1894, the defendant corporation commenced an action in the superior court of Madera County, against the Madera Fruit and Land Company, California Savings and Loan Society, and other defendants, for the purpose of subjecting a large tract of vineyard land and some personal property to a judgment owned by it. Plaintiff was appointed receiver in said last-named action, took the proper oath, and entered upon the discharge of his duties. At the time of the commencement of said action the California Savings and Loan Society…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Giselman v. StarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Ephraim v. Pacific BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Pacific Bank v. Madera Fruit & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by10 opinions
- Laguna Drainage District v. Charles Martin Co.California Court of Appeal · 1907
- Polk v. JohnsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Purcell v. Victor Power & Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1916
- Silverston v. Mercantile Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1912
- Stanton v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.