Frank v. Brady
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco. Frank sued the defendant in the Court below, and on the trial thereof, based his case on the following promissory note: “ On demand, I promise to pay Mayer Schultz or his agent, H. L. Kohn, one thousand dollars, with interest at the rate of three per cent, per month. Lewis Brady.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco. Frank sued the defendant in the Court below, and on the trial thereof, based his case on the following promissory note: “ On demand, I promise to pay Mayer Schultz or his agent, H. L. Kohn, one thousand dollars, with interest at the rate of three per cent, per month. Lewis Brady. “ San Francisco, August 23, 1852.” Across the back of the said note were two several writings, viz.: “ September 25th, 1852. “ Bec’d the payment of the within sum, and thirty-three dollars interest, by the hands of Mr. Isaac…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, C. J.
This was a suit upon a promissory note.
The appellant assigns two errors; 1st, The refusal of the Court below to grant a continuance; and 2d, Misdirection of the jury by the Court.
The affidavit for a continuance does not, in our opinion, show sufficient diligence on the part of the defendant. This was the second trial of the case. The witness had testified on the former trial, and was in the city of San Francisco until a few days before the second trial. The defendant relied on his promise to attend, and took no pains to secure his testimony, by deposition or otherwise. It is true, that the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Erkenbrecher v. GrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- People v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Ford v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Daman v. HuntCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- McDonald v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.