Legal Opinion

Tuller v. Arnold

California Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 1893No. 14193PublishedCited by 16 opinions

■ Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of Sau Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Haynes, C.

—Defendants were indebted to each of two business houses in Chicago for goods sold and delivered. The accounts were assigned to the plaintiff, who had prior to that time been admitted to practice in the superior court, but who was a clerk in the office of John H. Dickinson, Esq., who appeared as plaintiff’s attorney.

The answer denied the assignment and that plaintiff was the owner, alleged that plaintiff is an attorney-at-law, and connected with the law-office of John H. Dickinson, and that plaintiff bought these claims with the sole intent of bringing suit thereon.

The cause was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. O'Connor v. IrvineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. McCulloughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  2. Dollar v. International Banking Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1910
  3. Starke v. WannemacherNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Baglin v. Earl-Eagle Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Cleverdon v. GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944

11 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