Legal Opinion
McKenzie v. Ray
California Supreme Court
Decided October 13, 1914No. Sac. No. 2097PublishedCited by 9 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The suit was upon a written instrument which was in the following terms:
“$4496
“No. Galt, Cal. March 1st, 1894.
“Beceived from Alexander Montague Forty four hundred and ninety-six 18-100 Dollars. Payable on return of this certificate properly endorsed.
“$4496.18.
“Whitaker & Bay.”
It was admitted by the defendant-that the writing in question had been executed according to its purport but the answer set up full payment of the obligation which had been evidenced by the said instrument and in that behalf pleaded…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- People v. MilnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- De Arnaud v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Brooks v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Estate of Dole v. DoleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Light v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Coats v. General Motors Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1934
- Nicholas v. JacobsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- A. B. C. Distributing Co. v. Distillers Distributing Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- Stoneman v. FritzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Williams v. Casparis Bros.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.