Legal Opinion

Handley v. A. Pfister & Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1870No. 2,343PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Third District, Santa Clara County. The case is stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtWallace, J.

It appears that James Fitzgerald was justly indebted to several persons in divers sums of money, and, among the rest, to the plaintiff, who was, at the time, in his employ as a laborer.

Under these circumstances, and with the assent of these other creditors, he placed in the hands of the plaintiff certain wheat and barley, with instructions to sell it, apply its proceeds to the payment of these debts and return the overplus, if any, to Fitzgerald himself.

Handley, with the assent of these other creditors, having received the property under these instructions, caused it to be sold for cash by…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Morss v. StoneNew York Supreme Court · 1849

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Van Orden v. AndersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  2. Jarvis v. WebberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Reidy v. CollinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. Sabichi v. ChaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Steineck v. Haas-Baruch Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930

4 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