Hill v. Haskin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The following is the agreement under which the stock was purchased: “San Nbanoisco, November 21, 1863. “Agreement between Dr. John.H.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The following is the agreement under which the stock was purchased: “San Nbanoisco, November 21, 1863. “Agreement between Dr. John.H. Hill and J. W. Haskin, for the purchase of Crockett Consolidated Mining Company’s stock on joint account; all profits arising from the purchase and sale of said stock to be divided equally; Dr. Hill to furnish money for the purchase of said stock; one-half of the amount so advanced to be paid to him by said Haskin, with interest at four per cent, per month; Dr. Hill…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
After setting out the contract sued upon, and stating the facts in respect to the purchase of the stocks which constituted the subject-matter of the joint venture between the plaintiff and defendant, and averring the failure of the enterprise, the complaint alleges, “That after said money became due, and before the commencement of this action, plaintiff made due demand of said defendant for said sum of money; but the defendant has not paid the same, or any part thereof.” One of the defenses relied upon is the Statute of Limitations; and on the former appeal (42 Cal. 160), we held…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Sands v. Eagle Oil & Refining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
- Cushing v. PiresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Grand Bay Land Co. v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Hershfield & Bro. v. AikenMontana Supreme Court · 1880
- Weissich v. BehrensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.