Le Tourneux v. Gilliss
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granting a new trial. Thomas F. Graham, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
This action was brought to recover upon a promissory note for five hundred dollars made by defendants Wilson and Gilliss to Thomas Eager, the father and assignor of plaintiff. The note was executed for money to be advanced by Eager to Gilliss. Defendant Wilson received no consideration for signing the note, but signed at the request of Eager and as surety for Gilliss. Wilson alleged as a defense that the consideration for the note was a lobbying contract, which was illegal, against public policy, and void.
The court found in favor of Wilson on such affirmative defense.
Thereafter plaintiff…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Tool Co. v. NorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Rose & Hawley v. TruaxNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Jordan v. GroverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Chippewa Valley & Superior Railway Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
- Powers v. SkinnerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Slemons v. PatersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- In Re Marriage of LiuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Myers v. JonesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1899
- Spayd v. Ringing Rock LodgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- In Re Marriage of LiuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987