Legal Opinion

Haines v. Snedigar

California Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1895No. Sac. No. 27PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. J. H. Budd, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Searls, C.

This is an action upon a promissory note dated June 10, 1892, made by the defendant, who is respondent here, payable to Houser, Haines & Knight, or order, October 1, 1892, and by them indorsed to plaintiffs. At the trial the court, on motion of defendant, entered a judgment of nonsuit against the plaintiffs, who appeal from the judgment.

The complaint was in the ordinary form upon a promissory note. The answer admitted the making of the note by defendant and its assignment to plaintiffs, and, by way of avoidance, pleaded that the note was given in part payment of a harvester…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Mahoney v. AurrecocheaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hohn v. PaulyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
  2. Kutner-Goldstein Co. v. WorkmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API