Hook v. White
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial .District, City and County of San Francisco. The defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sprague, J.
This action is upon a joint and several promissory note, by the payee against one of its makers. The complaint avers: “ That at the time and place therein mentioned defendant executed to plaintiff a promissory note in writing, of which the following is a copy,” setting out the note in hoec verba, and then avers: “That said note has not been paid, nor any part thereof, except the interest up to March 1st, 1867, and that the entire principal sum of said note, together with interest from March 1st, 1867, was then due from defendant to plaintiff.”
The defendant’s answer…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Poorman v. D. O. Mills & Co.California Supreme Court · 1868
- Daniels & Lamont v. HallenbeckNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Russell v. WhippleNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Taggard v. Curtenius & JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1836
3Cited by17 opinions
- Westbay v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Harrison v. McCormickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Roberts v. DonovanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Curtin v. KowalskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Monroe v. FohlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.