Legal Opinion

James v. Yaeger

California Supreme Court

Decided October 22, 1890No. 13940PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.

— This action was brought by the respondent, as indorsee, against the appellant and two others, on a non-negotiable, joint and several promissory note. The other makers of the note denied the assignment to the respondent, and set up affirmatively that the note had been fully paid by the appellant. The appellant answered, admitting the execution of the note by himself and the other defendants, but denied that the payee of the note had ever assigned or delivered the same to the respondent, and alleged that he had fully paid the note to the payee, and taken it up; that he thereby became entitled…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wright v. MixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Yule v. BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Geurkink v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Yule v. BishopCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Enscoe v. FletcherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
  5. Bailes v. KeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

9 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