Legal Opinion
Hudepohl v. Liberty Hill Consolidated Mining & Water Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided September 20, 1889No. 12570PublishedCited by 12 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
Action on a promissory note. Answer, want of consideration. Trial and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals on the judgment roll.
The court found that the defendant, being a corporation, entered into the following contract with the plaintiff and one Buckman, through its superintendent: —
“ Know all men by these presents, that I, S. Wheeler, superintendent of the Liberty Hill Consolidated Mining and Water Company, for and on behalf of said company, have leased, and by these presents do lease, to C. Hudepohl and B. S. Buckman, for the term of one year from the date hereof, the right…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Crowley v. Genesee Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1880
- Smyth v. TankersleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Aiken v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
- Bernal v. HoviousCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Gardenhire v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In re Seward Dredging Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Von Goerlitz v. TurnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Stone v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Wiltsee v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Vietti v. NesbittNevada Supreme Court · 1895
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.