Eames v. Crosier
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
The plaintiff recovered judgment in the court below for the sum of six hundred and eiglityone dollars and fifty-two cents and costs of suit on two promissory notes for two hundred and fifty dollars each, dated May 9, 1889, payable in six and twelve months respectively after date.
It is claimed by the appellants that the second count does not state a cause of action. The point made is that it is insufficient to allege that the “plaintiff is now the holder and owner of said promissory note.” The point would be well taken if this were the only allegation showing ownership in the plaintiff. It is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jordan v. GroverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Curtis v. SpragueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by27 opinions
- Union Collection Co. v. BuckmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Bell v. PleasantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- California-Calaveras Mining Co. v. WallsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Goodale v. ThornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Scandinavian American Bank v. JohnstonWashington Supreme Court · 1911
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.