Legal Opinion

Dimond v. Sanderson

California Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1894No. 15359PublishedCited by 37 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Haynes, C.

This action was brought upon a promissory note made by the defendant June 1,1888, whereby he promised to pay Lydia Emma Sanderson six thousand dollars at twenty-four months after date, with interest payable monthly. The complaint is in the usual form, except that it alleges “ that Lydia Emma Sander-son was the name of the plaintiff prior to her marriage with Henry P. Dimond on the twenty-fifth day of June, 1890; that the name of the plaintiff is now Lydia Emma Dimond, and that the subject matter of this action concerns and is the separate property of the plaintiff.”

Defendant’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Jackson v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of CoverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Bacon v. SouleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  3. Odell v. MossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Rader v. ThrasherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Stiles v. CainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

32 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