Hartford v. All Night and Day Bank
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This is an action for damages. The jury awarded plaintiff two thousand five hundred dollars. Upon defendant’s motion for a new trial, hy order of court and on the consent of plaintiff, the judgment was reduced to the sum of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars; whereupon the motion for new trial was denied. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from the order denying its motion for a new trial.
The complaint charged that the defendant was doing a general banking business; that plaintiff was a depositor in the bank, and at the time of the occurrences hereinafter narrated always had more…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Loftus v. DehailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Savings Bank v. AsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Smiths' Cash Store v. First Nat. Bank FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Schwartz v. California Gas Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Guthrie v. CarneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Mouse v. Central Savings & Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1929
- Weaver v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Collins v. City National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
- Hale v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- County of Los Angeles v. HurlbutCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.