Minor v. Baldridge
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County. E. W. Wilson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
This action is for money had and received. The only facts alleged in the complaint are that on the second day of November, 1895, defendants were indebted to plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars for money had and received by them for the use of plaintiff, no part of which has been paid.
The defendants did not demur, and their answer consists only of a general denial.
At the trial the plaintiff introduced evidence which tended to prove that plaintiff and the corporation defendant entered into an agreement, in writing, by the terms of which plaintiff agreed to pay to the corporation twenty…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Castagnino v. BallettaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Marshall v. ShafterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Pleasant v. SamuelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Shade v. Sisson Mill & Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by46 opinions
- Weitzenkorn v. LesserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Steiner v. RowleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Pollak v. StauntonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Auer v. FrankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Barnes v. Eastern & Western Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1955
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.