Pauly v. Murray
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County and from an order denying a new trial. James A. Gibson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
Action on a promissory note made by defendant to said bank July 20, 1891, for the sum of five hundred and seventy-eight dollars and eighty cents, payable ninety days after date, with interest at the rate of one per cent per month from date. .
It is alleged in the answer of the defendant that this note was made by him as a renewal of a former note for the sum of five hundred dollars and interest, jointly made by him and one Hugh Burns to said bank, on which joint note he was a mere surety, of which the *15bank had notice at the time it was signed by him; that said joint note was given…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Moies v. BirdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Godfrey v. HumphreyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1836
- McNaught v. . McClaughryNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Harrington v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Leverone v. HildrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Stroud v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Bank of Beverly Hills v. CatainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Donovan v. WechslerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Loveland v. Sigel-Campion Live Stock Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1925
- Van Houten v. Van HoutenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.