Whittier v. Visscher
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloane, J.
This action was originally begun by one Eva B. Clark, as plaintiff, to recover on a promissory note. The note, conceded to be non-negotiable, was for the sum of $4,750, and was executed by appellants and defendants Mrs. W. E. Yisscher and Hugo Kraght Yisscher to defendant Mrs. E. M. Dixon.
Before suit was instituted the note had been indorsed by the payee, Mrs. Dixon, to Henry P. Whittier, the present plaintiff" and respondent, and by him indorsed without'recourse to the original plaintiff, Eva B. Clark, who thereafter brought this action to recover from the Yisschers, the makers of the note,…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Hancock National Bank v. FarnumSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Whitman v. Oxford National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- McDougald v. HuletCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Platt v. WilmotSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Bliss v. SneathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. FalesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Jones v. MortimerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Holtzendorff v. Housing AuthorityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Denton v. DetweilerIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.