Hahn v. Schmidt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment and from an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial in an action for malicious prosecution.
There are hut two exceptions before us.
1. To that portion of the charge of the court contained in the following extract: —
“Now, I instruct you'that this complaint, on the face of it, not only does not state facts which constitute the crime of forgery, or any crime, it merely shows that the plaintiff signed an *285acceptance thus: Joseph Schmidt, per William Hahn; and this in law does not constitute a forgery. Yet the facts stated in the complaint, although not…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- M'Neely v. DriskillIndiana Supreme Court · 1829
- Rourke v. RourkeIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
- Sutton v. McConnellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Collins v. LoveIndiana Supreme Court · 1845
- Forrest v. CollierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Ball v. RawlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Birwood Paper Company v. DamskySupreme Court of Alabama · 1969
- Richter v. NeilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Gogue v. MacDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.