Rose v. Doe
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a new trial. J. C. B. Hebbard, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, P. J.
Action for an accounting. The cause was tried by the court, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. A motion by the plaintiff for a new trial was denied, and from this order he has appealed. The facts constituting the controversy between the parties, as disclosed at the trial and shown by the findings of the court, are as follows:
The plaintiff’s assignor, J. S. Emery, made two promissory notes to the defendant—one bearing date September 15, 1896, for $33,319, and the other bearing date December 16, 1896, for $14,950, each payable six months after its date. As collateral security for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McDougald v. HuletCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Guidery v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Stringer v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Gould v. StaffordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Crosby v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Douillard v. WooddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Sweet v. HamilothorisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Lewis v. Western Truck LineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Benner v. HooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Liberty Bank v. ErnstCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928