Glugermovich v. Zicovich
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of' Santa Clara County. W. G. Lorigan, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Britt, C.
Action on a promissory note for the sum of four hundred and seventy-three dollars, made by defendant to plaintiff, and which fell due June 14, 1894; one of its provisions was that in case of suit a reasonable counsel fee should be allowed. On said June 14th Zicovich, the maker, was garnished in respect of his indebtedness on the note in an action brought by one Coschina *66in a justice’s court against the plaintiff here, said Glugermovich; such attachment was in force when this action was begun—June 15,1894—and the defendant Zicovich pleaded the fact thereof in his answer. The suit of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McFadden v. O'DonnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Shealy v. TooleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1876
- Moody v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1862
- McKeon v. McDermottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Jones v. WoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Clyne v. Easton, Eldrige & Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
- Lerno v. ObergfellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Calkins v. BerlinerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Kent v. County Fire InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938