Legal Opinion

Sukeforth v. Lord

California Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1891No. 13363PublishedCited by 29 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages on account of the seizure by defendant, under a writ of attachment, of certain goods claimed by the plaintiff. The case arose under the following circumstances: On *401the 15th of August, 1888, L. M. Sukeforth, who for a number of years theretofore had canned on a certain carpet business at Nevada City, being largely indebted and insolvent, sold, transferred, and delivered to the plaintiff, who is his brother, for a nominal consideration of fifteen hundred dollars, his entire stock in trade, all his outstanding bills and accounts, and all other property exempt…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Shea v. Potrero & Bay View RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Albertoli v. BranhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Hughes v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Bull v. FordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  5. McCreery v. EverdingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Spreckels v. GorrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Severance v. Knight-Counihan Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Campbell v. GenshleaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Longabaugh v. Virginia City & Truckee RailroadNevada Supreme Court · 1874

24 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