Legal Opinion

Hall v. Jameson

California Supreme Court

Decided August 9, 1907No. L.A. No. 1905PublishedCited by 28 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

This is a suit upon a promissory note in the following words:—

“$2800. Boston, June 8th, 1897.
“For value received, I promise to pay to Nathaniel U. Walker, trustee under the will of Francis Jackson, for the benefit of Harriet M. Palmer, or order, two thousand eight hundred dollars, in three years from this date with interest, to be paid semi-annually, at the rate of five per centum per annum, until this note is paid in full.
“William H. Jameson, Trustee.”

This note was assigned to plaintiff before suit. Judgment was given for the plaintiff and the defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Taylor v. Davis' AdministratrixSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Hobson v. HassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Phelps v. MayersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Savings v. ColbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
  5. Maddox v. WymanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Torrey Pines Bank v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  2. Motor & Industrial Finance Corporation v. HughesTexas Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Standard Livestock Co. v. PentzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Conerty v. RichtsteigIllinois Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Charles Nelson Co. v. MortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

23 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