Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Ford

California Supreme Court

Decided January 26, 1901No. S.F. No. 1602PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facte are stated in the opinion of the court,

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

This action was brought to compel defendant to set forth the nature and extent of his claim on a certain promissory note purporting to have been executed by plaintiff to defendant, and to have the same determined by the court to he of no force and validity.

Plaintiff and defendant were partners in the lumber business in West Berkeley, and defendant sold his interest in the business and property of the partnership to the plaintiff, and received the promissory note in suit as part payment on the sale. The note originally was for the sum of $8,509.87, and was given in accordance with a contract…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Nounnan v. Sutter County Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Hecht v. BatchellerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
  3. Lee v. McClellandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Dortic v. DugasSupreme Court of Georgia · 1875
  5. Rendell v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Standard Box Co. v. Mutual Biscuit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
  2. Commercial Savings Bank v. HornbergerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Louisville Title Insurance v. Surety Title & Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1976
  4. Simmons v. SweeneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
  5. Rankin v. KellyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API