Loughborough v. McNevin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of Department Two.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed for the reasons given in the decision by Department Two, filed June 27, 1887.
Sharpstein, J., Searls, C. J., McFarland, J., Temple, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.
The following is the opinion of Department Two, above referred to:—■
Thornton, J.
The plaintiff’s intestate, some time prior to October, 1876, lent defendant Henry P. Mc-Nevin a sum of money, for which he received as security some shares of stock. On the 19th of July, 1877, McNevin assigned to defendant L. P. Drexler his interest in the stock above mentioned, in consideration that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kortright v. . CadyNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Lawrence v. . MaxwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Hancock v. Franklin InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Dodge v. MeyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- McCalla v. ClarkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1875
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- William A. Goichman, on Behalf of Himself and a Class of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Rheuban Motors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Goes v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Walker v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Blodgett v. RheinschildCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Berry v. Bank of BakersfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.