Legal Opinion

Goldsmith v. Sawyer

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1873No. 3,088PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The account mentioned in the opinion was attached to and referred to in the complaint as “Exhibit A.” The only averment in the complaint of an agreement to pay in gold coin was the following: “ Plaintiffs allege that all the transactions herein specified were in and for United States gold coin, and that the moneys advanced as aforesaid were all in said gold coin.”

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The account mentioned in the opinion was attached to and referred to in the complaint as “Exhibit A.” The only averment in the complaint of an agreement to pay in gold coin was the following: “ Plaintiffs allege that all the transactions herein specified were in and for United States gold coin, and that the moneys advanced as aforesaid were all in said gold coin.” J. H. Jones & Co. had assigned the demand sued on to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs recovered judgment for one thousand one hundred and…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant employed J. H. Jones & Co., stock brokers, to purchase and hold for him certain mining stock “on thirty days time, and at the expiration of said time to sell the same for cash, and again to purchase the same on thirty days time, and so to continue the purchase and sale of said stock, under and subject to the rules of the Board of Brokers, in San Francisco, until the further directions of the defendant.” The complaint then states that, in pursuance of such agreement, J. H. Jones & Co. purchased and sold stock on account…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of BrixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Robbins v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1925
  3. Pray v. Trower Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Bennett v. Logan & BryanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  5. Stallman v. KimberlyNew York Supreme Court · 1889

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API