McLaren v. Hutchinson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Tenth District. The complaint avers, that on the sixth of August, 1859, George H. Beach was indebted to plaintiff four hundred and nineteen dollars and eight cents, to E. Keller one hundred and eighty-three dollars, to McBean ninety-six dollars, to Bagwell one hundred and eighty-seven dollars, all for work and labor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Tenth District. The complaint avers, that on the sixth of August, 1859, George H. Beach was indebted to plaintiff four hundred and nineteen dollars and eight cents, to E. Keller one hundred and eighty-three dollars, to McBean ninety-six dollars, to Bagwell one hundred and eighty-seven dollars, all for work and labor. These several items are set out in four counts, it being averred in each count that defendant, in consideration of said sums being paid to him by said Beach, promised in writing to pay the same to the respective parties, who sold and assigned to plaintiff. The…
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
Field, C. J. concurring.
In this case the defendant purchased of one Beach a tract of land, and, as a part of the consideration, agreed to pay certain debts specified in the complaint. Neither the plaintiff nor any of the personS to whom the debts were owing were parties to this agreement, and it does not appear that they ever assented to or attempted in any manner to connect themselves with the transaction prior to the commencement of the suit. The plaintiff is the present holder of these debts, and the question is whether he can maintain an action against the defendant for their recovery. It…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Chuck v. Quan Wo Chong & Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- Malone v. Crescent City Mill & Transportation Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Carnahan v. TouseyIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Lewis v. CovillaudCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Stanton v. Santa Ana Sugar Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.