Chamberlain v. Pac. Wool-Growing Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a'judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Twelfth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Dain gerfield, J.; The note referred to in the opinion runs as follows: “ Ninety days after date, without grace, I promise to pay,” etc., and is signed as stated in the opinion. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 2, Myrick, J.:
This, is an action upon a promissory note, dated July 29th, 1875, for $850, and interest at one per cent, per month. The note is signed, “D. P. Sackett, President Pacific Wool-Growing Company,” and is, in terms, made payable to the order of plaintiff. The complaint alleges that the note was executed for money loaned by plaintiff to defendant through its then president, D. P. Sackett; that the money was used by Sackett for the use and benefit of defendant; and that, after the loan and use of the money, defendant assumed the loan, and ratified and confirmed the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Conner v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by15 opinions
- Wickersham v. CrittendenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Park Hotel Co. v. Fourth Nat. Bank of St. LouisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
- Meyer v. Glenmoor Homes, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- Graves v. Mono Lake Hydraulic Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
- Bowdon Lime Works v. MossAlabama Court of Appeals · 1915
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.