Lavenson v. Wise
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action, for services as attorney at law rendered defendant by Joseph Bothschild, Esq., plaintiff’s assignor. Defendant denied the alleged indebtedness, and as a separata answer alleged that the firm of Christy & Wise, composed of John H. Wise (defendant) and Harry E. Wise, was the owner of a promissory note for nine thousand seven hundred and sixty dollars, made by one James Murphy and one E. Smalley; that said Bothschild represented to said firm that he could collect the money due on said note, whereupon it was agreed between Bothschild and Christy & Wise that said firm should pay…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Roche v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Reynolds v. Sorosis Fruit CompanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Biaggi v. SawyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- City of Long Beach v. O'DonnellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- In Re BurnsIdaho Supreme Court · 1935
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.