Randall v. Hunter
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County, and from an order refusing a new trial. Action on a promissory note. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
It is found that one Long gave his note to defendant Gill for $1000, and that he transferred the same to plaintiff. Afterwards Long sold his interest in a stock of goods to Gill, and he agreed, in consideration thereof, to pay Long’s note, which was held by plaintiff. Subsequently defendant Hunter purchased of Gill a half interest in the stock of goods, and they became partners, under the firm name of Gill & Hunter. “ As part payment for said property and business purchased from said Gill, defendant Hunter agreed to pay one-half of all the indebtedness of said Gill theretofore incurred by him…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Learned v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Fanta v. MaddexCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Kennedy & Shaw Lumber Co. v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Selig Cahn, Inc. v. AlschulerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Hogendobler v. LyonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.