Hobart v. Tyrrell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Alameda, and from an order refusing a new trial. Action to recover possession of the promissory note mentioned in the opinion. The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
— The subject of this controversy is a certain promissory note executed by the California Hosiery Company to Francis A. Hobart, the plaintiff and appellant herein, and levied on by the respondent as sheriff by virtue of a writ of attachment issued in an action brought by one Clay against John A. Hobart, the father of appellant. The note was executed for part of the purchase-money of a piece of land which was, on the 20th of March, 1880, conveyed by John A. Hobart to his son Francis as a gift, and afterwards conveyed under a power of attorney by John A., as attorney in fact of Francis A.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Risdon v. YatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- People v. StevensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Donohoe-Kelly Banking Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
- Ballou v. Andrews Banking Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- Barr v. RoderickDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1925