Shea-Bouqueraz Co. v. Hartman
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior ourt of the City and County of San Francisco granting a new trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in. the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is an action by the plaintiff against the defendant on a promissory note for the sum of three thousand dollars.
The court awarded judgment to the defendant, and thereafter granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
This appeal is by the defendant from the order granting a new trial.
It appears from the testimony that the plaintiff was a creditor of the Sehroeder-Hartman Company, of which corporation, Hartman is a member. It likewise appears that the defendant and John D. Schroeder, also a member of the Sehroeder-Hartman Company, made and delivered the note involved here jointly and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Kauffman v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Domico v. CasassaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Warner v. F. Thomas Parisian Dyeing & Cleaning WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Simon Newman Co. v. LassingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Martin v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Otten v. SpreckelsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. RollinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917