MacDonald v. Roeth
California Supreme Court
CROSS-APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. J. 0. Moncur,1 Judge Presiding. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court and in Macdonald v. De Fremery ét al., 168 Cal. 189, [142 Pac. 73]. A. S. Macdonald, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, and A. D. Plaw, for Plaintiff. Fitzgerald, Abbott & Beardsley, and W. F. Williamson, for Defendants George Roeth et al.
1Opinion of the Court
RICHARDS J., pro tem.
The case out of which these two appeals arose was before this court upon a previous trial and appeal (Macdonald v. De Fremery et al., 168 Cal. 189, [142 Pac. 73].) The judgment of the court upon the first trial of the cause was therein reversed, whereupon the cause was retried and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, -from which these two appeals were taken to this court; and the cause having been transferred to the district court of appeal, both appeals were therein heard together and a decision rendered wherein the judgment, in so far as it was assailed by the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hindman v. First Nat. Bank of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1902
- Hines v. BrodeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Jones National Bank v. YatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Gerner v. MosherNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- MacDonald v. De FremeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Denny v. GuytonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Sorenson v. GardnerOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Coopers & LybrandDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- California Credit & Collection Corp. v. RandallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.