Williams v. Hall
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The facts are stated in the "opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
—The transcript in this case is 'improperly-entitled. The plaintiffs in the court below are put as the defendants oh appeal, and the defendants in the court below are put as the plaintiffs on appeal.
Under our system this is improper and confusing. (Simpson v. Applegate, 75 Cal. 345.)
The action was upon a contract for the payment of money; judgment was given for the plaintiffs, and the defendants appeal. The first point is, that the complaint does not allege that there was a consideration for the contract. But in the first place, we think that a consideration is alleged. By their…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Johnson v. KleinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Winters v. RushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Simpson v. ApplegateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by14 opinions
- Cuthill v. PeabodyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Huber v. ShedoudyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- In Re the Estate of ThomsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Krug v. F. A. Lux Brewing Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- Patterson v. ChapmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.