Legal Opinion

Prost v. More

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1870No. 2,318PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from tbe District Court of ■ tbe Fifteenth. District, Citj and County of San Francisco. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Temple, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court:

Tbis suit is brought upon three promissory notes for $250 each, executed by More in favor of B. Bonnet & Co., by whom they were assigned to plaintiff. Tbe answer admits tbe execution of tbe notes, -but sets up that they were executed in pursuance of a contract between B. Bonnet & Co. and defendant, in which defendant purchased tbe tools, utensils and material of Bonnet & Co., used in tbe asphal-tum business, and also said business; and also,'as a part of tbe same contract, said Bonnet & Co. bound themselves in writing not to carry on tbe business…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Crawford v. MorrellNew York Supreme Court · 1811

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Domenigoni v. Imperial Live Stock & Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Hicks v. LovellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Santa Clara Valley Mill and Lumber Co. v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Tatterson v. KehrleinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  5. Morey v. PaladiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

11 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