Legal Opinion

Siddall v. Clark

California Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1891No. 13141PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C.

— This is an action on a promissory note. The defendant pleaded want of consideration for its execution. The court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.

The facts are these: In 1879, the defendant, for a valuable consideration, executed to W. W. Traylor two promissory notes, for sums aggregating $2,950, and bearing interest at the rate of one per cent per month. In January, 1883, Traylor died intestate, and in February following Mrs. Elizabeth D. Traylor was duly appointed administratrix of his estate. She qualified and entered upon the discharge of her duties…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Deland v. HiettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  2. Moulton v. HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Wolfsen v. HathawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Fritz v. MillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Gallagher v. Equitable Gas Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Rogers Dev. Co. v. Southern California Real Estate Inv. Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Blumer v. MaddenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

9 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