Legal Opinion

Brainard v. Fitzgerald

California Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1935No. S. F. 15252PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

This is an appeal from a money judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff in an action brought against the surety on an attachment bond furnished in another action.

It appears that the Richard Behrendt Company was a copartnership engaged in the business of selling at wholesale toys, fireworks and novelties. At about 9:15 o ’clock on the morning of January 20, 1932, the copartnership executed and delivered to the plaintiff herein, who is the secretary of the board of trade of San Francisco, an assignment of all its assets for the benefit of creditors generally. The assignment is on a printed…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Moore v. SchneiderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Heath v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Forbes v. ScannellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Jarvis v. WebberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Kaye v. JacobsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Chance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. First National Bank v. Pomona Tile Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
  3. Bumb v. BennettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Moecker v. AntoineDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
  5. Tatung Co. v. Shu Tze HsuDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014

5 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