Bean v. Pioneer Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. Action in a promissory note. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
The promissory note on which it is sought to charge the defendant, Mason, personally, is signed; “ Pioneer Mining Company, John E. Mason, Sup’t.” The note reads, “ We promise to pay,” and not “The Pioneer Mining Company promises to pay.” The seal of the corporation is not attached. It is insisted by appellant that the instrument is the note of the company and Mason; that the words, “ we promise to pay,” clearly establish this. But the question is not to be determined merely by reference to rules of grammar. If the note was signed unmistakably by the company, and the company alone, we could…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Blanchard v. KaullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- The 'Woodland.'Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Lander v. CastroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by18 opinions
- Liebscher v. KrausWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Von Schmidt Dredge Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- Hobson v. HassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Heffner v. BrownellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Reeve v. First National BankSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1891
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.