Legal Opinion

Findlay v. Pott

California Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1901No. S.F. No. 2388PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This action was brought by plantiff, as assignee of Field, to recover ten thousand dollars alleged to be due on four promissory notes, executed in pursuance of the contract involved in Field v. Austin, ante, p. 379, just decided, and belonging to the same series as the notes sued on in that case. The notes all contain stipulations for attorneys' fees in case of suit, and are, therefore, non-negotiable. (First Nat.Bank v. Babcock, 94 Cal. 961; First Nat. Bank v. Falkenhan,94 Cal. 141; Adams v. Seaman, 82 Cal. 636; Chase v. Whitmore,68 Cal. 545; Civ. Code, secs. 3087, 3093.) Otherwise the case…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chase v. WhitmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Adams v. SeamanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. First National Bank v. FalkenhanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. First National Bank v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cotton v. John Deere Plow Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1904
  2. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. McCoy & Spivey Bros.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  3. McEwen v. BlackSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API