Atwood v. Little Bonanza Quicksilver Co.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County refusing to dissolve an attachment. E. P. Unangst, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, P. J.
The action was upon certain negotiable instruments on their face executed by the corporation at Boston, Massachusetts, without definite place of payment therein stated. At the commencement of the action, plaintiffs, by an affidavit filed, alleged that the notes were payable within this state, and other facts requisite in order to procure a writ of attachment. No statements, however, were therein contained as to the residence of defendant corporation. The writ was issued and a motion made to dissolve the same, upon the ground that the instruments were made in another state and were not payable…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Slacum v. PomerySupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Eck v. HoffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Tuller v. ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Drake v. De WittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Commager v. DicksSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- American Industrial Sales Corp. v. Airscope, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1955
- Snapp v. KidderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- O'Steen v. CraigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956