Legal Opinion
Neale v. Head
California Supreme Court
Decided May 25, 1901No. S.F. No. 2172PublishedCited by 5 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Garber, Boalt & Bishop, Bishop & Wheeler, Thomas B. Bishop, and William Rix, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.
The appeal is taken from the judgment and also from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
The action was brought in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, by one Joseph E. Shain, for whom the present plaintiff was substituted as plaintiff at the trial. The action is founded upon a promissory note of the defendant, constituting one of the so-called guaranty notes, of which the following is a copy:-—
“ Office of the California Mutual Life Insurance Company. “$5,000. San Francisco, Jan. 6,1868. “ Five days after actual demand, for value received, I promise to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Miller v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Morrow v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Tomlinson v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- In re California Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Ind. Dist. v. ReichardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
3Cited by5 opinions
- Neale v. MorrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- People v. Marblehead Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- Neale v. MorrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Young v. VictorySupreme Court of Florida · 1933
- Middle Tennessee Bank v. McKennonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1936