Legal Opinion

Hill v. Finigan

California Supreme Court

Decided October 24, 1888No. 9992PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

The Court.

Action for damages for the conversion of certain mining stock and diamonds. This property was pledged to secure the payment of money advanced by defendant at the request of plaintiff. Payment not having been made, the pledgee caused the property to be sold to satisfy the debt. The grounds of objection to the sale are, that although notice of the sale was given to the pledgor, none was given to the public, and that the pledgee himself was the purchaser at the sale. The defense was, that the want of notice to the public was at the pledgor’s request, and to save him from expense, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hayward v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Levins v. RovegnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Treadwell v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Turner v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Spreckels v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Wade v. Markwell & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
  3. Tennent v. Union Central Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  4. Lynip v. Alturas School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
  5. Lindsay v. Kleiber Motor Truck Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930

2 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