Kullman v. Simmens
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. This action was brought to recover from the defendant the sum of four thousand four hundred and two dollars and eighty-five cents, for moneys advanced and paid out by the plaintiffs for and at the request of the defendant. The plaintiffs were stockbrokers dealing in the Pacific Stock Exchange of San Francisco.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. This action was brought to recover from the defendant the sum of four thousand four hundred and two dollars and eighty-five cents, for moneys advanced and paid out by the plaintiffs for and at the request of the defendant. The plaintiffs were stockbrokers dealing in the Pacific Stock Exchange of San Francisco. The defendant was their customer, and, from the early part of January until the 6th of May, 1891, gave them orders and instructions to purchase and sell for him…
1Opinion of the CourtHarrisoN, J.
The questions involved in this appeal have been determined adversely to the contention of the appellant in the cases of Cashman v. Root, 89 Cal. 373; Wetmore v. Barrett, 103 Cal. 246; and Sheehy v. Shinn, 103 Cal. 325; and upon the authority of those cases the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed. There is nothing in Kutz v. Fleisher, 67 Cal. 93, inconsistent with the above cases. That action involved a series of transactions extending over several years, most of which were had prior to January 1, 1880, and the provisions of the present constitution were, of course, inapplicable…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sheehy v. ShinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Cashman v. RootCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Kutz v. FleisherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Wetmore v. BarrettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pollitz v. WickershamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Fox v. Hale & Norcross Silver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Parker v. OtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Griffin v. PayneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Maurer v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.