Legal Opinion
Luning v. Wise
California Supreme Court
Decided December 29, 1883PublishedCited by 1 opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts appear in the opinion of the court, and in the dissenting opinion of Mb. Justice Thornton.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
Action by the indorsee against the indorser upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: —
“475.00.
“ San Francisco, March 24, 1879.
“ Thirty days after date, without grace, we promise to pay to the order of T. B. Wise, four hundred and seventy-five dollars, with interest at the rate of one per cent per month from date until paid. Principal and interest payable only in gold coin of the government of the United States, for value received.
“ Edward W. Jones,
“By his attorney in fact, Thomas H. Holt,
“ Thomas H. Holt.”
At its maturity the note was not presented to Jones, one of the joint…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. HomesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- Ricketts v. PendletonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1859
- Blake v. McMillenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- Blake v. McMillenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- M'Kee v. BoswellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kunz v. California Trona Co.California Supreme Court · 1915