Legal Opinion

Griffith v. Lewin

California Supreme Court

Decided September 4, 1900No. L.A. No. 896PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

COOPER, C.

This action was brought to recover $879.90 balance due on a promissory note made by defendant’s intestate. Upon the first trial the court below found that the note had been fully paid, and ordered judgment for defendant. This judgment was reversed here upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the finding, and the cause was remanded for a new trial. (Griffith v. Lewin, 125 Cal. 618.) Upon a retrial the court found that the note has not been paid, and that all the allegations of the amended complaint are true, except the allegation that the claim upon the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Landis v. WoodmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Griffith v. LewinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Warren v. McGillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Hall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Doolittle v. McConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Guerian v. JoyceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Stockton Savings Bank v. McCownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Empire State Mining Co. v. MitchellMontana Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. RobisonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914

2 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