Hulbert v. All Night and Day Bank
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. Charles Wellborn, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Some time prior to October 29, 1909, plaintiff and one Frank J. Rogers agreed that they would enter into a copartnership for conducting a business under the firm name “Pacific Buying Company”; it being further agreed that plaintiff should deposit with the defendant All Night and Day Bank, to the credit of the Pacific Buying Company, the sum of one thousand dollars, and that Rogers should deposit the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars to the same account, and plaintiff the further sum of five hundred dollars. In pursuance of this agreement so made with Rogers, plaintiff, on October 29,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Patterson v. Marine N. BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Colton Land & Water Co. v. SwartzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Hemphill v. YerkesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Nolting v. National BankSupreme Court of Virginia · 1901
3Cited by8 opinions
- Forrest v. FinkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- City of San Marcos v. California Highway CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1971
- Watson v. Southern Pacific Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1944
- National City Bank of New York v. Continental Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Salt Lake CityCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.