Field v. Austin
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion. John E. Richards, John G. Jury, and James H. Campbell, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, C.
The plaintiff recovered judgment in the court below for the sum of thirteen thousand three hundred and ten dollars, with interest and attorney’s fee, alleged to be due on seven promissory notes made to the plaintiff by the defendants. The complaint is in the ordinary form. The defense was fraud in the procurement of the contract. The questions involved relate exclusively to the sufficiency of the findings.
The answer of the" defendant Pott, besides denying yrat the notes were given for valuable consideration, and alleging that they were wholly without consideration, “avers: 1. That…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Norris v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Toby v. Oregon Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Whitney v. AllaireNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Withers v. GreeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Treadwell v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- American National Bank v. DonnellanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- More v. MoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Paolini v. SulprizioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- General Acc. Etc. Corp. v. Indus. Acc. Com.California Supreme Court · 1925
- Kent v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.