Legal Opinion
Wright v. Perry Byrne
California Supreme Court
Decided September 4, 1900No. S.F. No. 1886PublishedCited by 3 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
GRAY, C.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment against him for costs, and from an order denying him a new trial.
The action was commenced April SO, 1896, and is to recover the amount of a promissory note dated ¡November 19, 1891, for four thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars and interest. This note is signed: “Kate C. Perry, guardian for the person and estate of Florence Blythe, a minor.” In addition to the usual allegations in a suit on a promissory note the amended complaint contains the following:
“That the said Kate C. Perry Byrne (then Kate C. Perry), as guardian of the person and estate of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Brown v. OlmstedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Morse v. HinckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Leverone v. HildrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Comstock v. BreedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by3 opinions
- Schram v. PooleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- Dunlap v. Sunset Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1914
- McDonald v. RandallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903