Legal Opinion

Upper San Joaquin Irrigating Canal Co. v. Roach

California Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1889No. 11703PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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 are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Hayne, C.

— Action upon a promissory note; judgment for plaintiff; defendant appeals.

The material facts are as follows: The plaintiff, being in need of money to complete its canal, sent its president to New York to sell some of its stock. He sold some stock to the defendant’s intestate, and took the note sued on in payment. It is claimed that at the time of the sale the president represented to the vendee that the canal could be completed for fifty thousand dollars, when, as a matter of fact, more than three hundred thousand dollars was required to complete it. The evidence shows that some…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gifford v. CarvillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Fitz v. BynumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Field v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Weddle v. HeathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. W. Ross Campbell Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. Grunwald v. FreeseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Rogers v. KimballCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API