Van Buskirk v. Kuhns
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The defendant appeals from a judgment against him, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage on land in Riverside County. It is alleged in the complaint that in No vember, 1894, the defendant’s intestate, E. P. Reynolds, Jr., who was then indebted to plaintiff in the sum of three thousand dollars for money loanecl, borrowed of plaintiff the further sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, and promised to pay plaintiff the entire sum of four thousand five hundred dollars “whenever he, the said E. P. Reynolds, Jr., should be able to do…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Estate of Dunphy v. DunphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Rodgers v. ByersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Tebo v. . RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Lilly-Brackett Co. v. SonnemannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Williston v. PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Biewend v. BiewendCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Byrne v. HarveyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Horacek v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Smith v. Graham Refrigeration Products Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
- Tumey v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.