Legal Opinion

Kunz v. California Trona Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1915No. S.F. No. 6901PublishedCited by 3 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

A further hearing in this court was granted after decision by the district court of appeal affirming the judgments and orders appealed from in the above actions.

Three separate suits were brought by plaintiff as transferee of three different promissory notes to recover thereon, such separate suits being necessary by reason of the different defendants in each. The issues between the plaintiff and defendants in each action being identical, the cases were tried together. Judgment in each case was for plaintiff on the note against the California Trona Company and some pf the other…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Giselman v. StarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Knox v. CliffordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Palmer v. GoodwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
  4. Luning v. WiseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Commercial Security Co. v. Modesto Drug Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
  2. Kunz v. California Trona Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Stockton v. HughesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API