Wheatley v. Strobe
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth District, County of Sacramento. This was an action of assumpsit to recover a sum of money. The facts as they appear in the opinion of the Court, are as follows : As' appears from the record in this case, Strobe ivas indebted to Wheatley, and Wheatley to Howel, and Howel to Wilcoxson & Co. To pay his debt, Wheatley gave Howel an order on Strobe for $236, payable to bearer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth District, County of Sacramento. This was an action of assumpsit to recover a sum of money. The facts as they appear in the opinion of the Court, are as follows : As' appears from the record in this case, Strobe ivas indebted to Wheatley, and Wheatley to Howel, and Howel to Wilcoxson & Co. To pay his debt, Wheatley gave Howel an order on Strobe for $236, payable to bearer. This order is not set forth in the record, but is admitted by counsel to be in the following form: “ Sac. City, July 18,1857. Mr. Strobe :—Please pay the bearer of these lines two hundred and thirty-six…
1Opinion of the CourtField, J.
Upon the facts in this case the appellants make two points : First. That the verbal acceptance of Strobe was sufficient to render him liable to Howel upon the order of Wheatley; and, Second. If this be untenable, that the order operated as an equitable assignment of the demand against Strobe, which thus became subject to attachment as the property of Howel.
The first of these points cannot be sustained. The order possesses all the requisites of an inland bill of exchange. It contains a direction for the payment of money by one person to another, absolutely and at all events. As no time is…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Blin v. PierceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- Corser v. CraigU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1806
- Foster v. WhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839
- Black v. PaulSupreme Court of Missouri · 1846
- Crayton v. ClarkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Pullen v. Placer Country BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Guggenhime & Co. v. LamantiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Board of Commissioners v. JamesonIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Goldman v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- John Costello, as Trustee of the Estate of William Jason Evans, Bankrupt v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.