Curtiss v. Bachman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial.' The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
On March 26, 1880, Nettie Gilman instituted an action against Gilbert L. Curtiss, the plaintiff in the present action, and the .¿Etna Life Insurance Company, in order to recover a certain life policy issued by that company to the mother of plaintiff, and assigned by her to him, and also to restrain the company from paying over the money due on the policy to any one but Nettie Gilman, and seeking to have Gilbert L. Curtiss required to assign the policy in question to her.
A temporary restraining order was made by the court upon the execution of a bond by the plaintiff in that action in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- De Boom v. PriestlyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1850
- Brooks v. MinturnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1851
- Pierce v. MinturnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1851
3Cited by11 opinions
- Curtiss v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Daly v. Swift & Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1931
- Bryson v. McConeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Hurley v. RyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- City of Lewiston v. BrintonIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.