Fairbanks v. Dawson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Tuolumne County. The statement of facts appears in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
Field, J., dissented.
The defendants jointly and severally executed their promissory note to plaintiffs, payable on demand, with interest, and dated April 16, 1853. On the sixth day of October, 1853, Pat*91terson paid the sum of fifty dollars upon the note. C-Suit w&s brought upon the note, May 20,1857, and the defendants ple^tde’d the Statute of Limitations. The Court below held the plea good, and gave judgment for the defendants accordingly, from which judgment the plaintiffs appealed to this Court.
The facts being admitted, the case presents two questions: first, whether a part payment, made…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Clunin v. First Federal Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
- Barron v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Kelly v. LeachmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1893
- Heinlin v. CastroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- People v. Citizens National Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.