Legal Opinion

Bank of Orland v. Finnell

California Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1901No. Sac. No. 826PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, C.

—The suit is to recover money alleged to be due on a parol contract, the terms of which are set out in the com plaint. The defense is a denial of the material allegations of the complaint, and as an affirmative defense, in effect, that, by a subsequent agreement, the contract was satisfied and discharged. The cau^e was' tried by a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered accordingly. The appeal is from the judgment.

The preliminary point is made by the respondent’s attorneys, that the bill of exceptions was not served and presented for settlement in…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Herring, Farrell & Sherman v. SkaggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
  2. Hammatt v. EmersonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1847
  3. Williams v. Kelsey & HalstedSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
  4. Converse v. MeyerNebraska Supreme Court · 1883
  5. Grant v. PenderySupreme Court of Kansas · 1875

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Mayborne v. Citizens Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  2. Lloyd v. KleefischCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  3. Hellings v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  4. Hodgkins v. DunhamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
  5. Haffke v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1948

6 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