Davidson v. Jordan
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action brought on the following promissory note: “San Francisco, July 1st, 1869. “On or before the 1st day of April, a.d. 1870, without grace, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of myself, twenty-five hundred dollars, in United States gold coin, with interest from date till paid, at the rate of one per cent, per month—interest payable monthly. “D. Jordan.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action brought on the following promissory note: “San Francisco, July 1st, 1869. “On or before the 1st day of April, a.d. 1870, without grace, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of myself, twenty-five hundred dollars, in United States gold coin, with interest from date till paid, at the rate of one per cent, per month—interest payable monthly. “D. Jordan.” The note was given in purchase of an interest in the “Stirling Mine,” in Arizona Territory. The defendant recovered judgment in the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, J.:
The defense relied upon to defeat a recovery upon the " promissory note in suit, is the alleged false and fraudulent representations of Frank, the plaintiff’s assignor. It appears from the testimony of the defendant, that Frank, in representing the value of the mine, the amount and value of the ore extracted and on hand, the supply of water and abundance of wood for the working of the mine, and other matters affecting the value of the mine, spoke upon information received from other persons; that he gave the defendant the names of the persons who had communicated the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Boles v. AldridgeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Jarvis v. IrelandWashington Supreme Court · 1916
- C. L. Glover Co. v. FarinacciCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Boles v. AldridgeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912