Prost v. More
California Supreme Court
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
- Crawford v. MorrellNew York Supreme Court · 1811
3Cited by16 opinions
- Domenigoni v. Imperial Live Stock & Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
- Hicks v. LovellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Santa Clara Valley Mill and Lumber Co. v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Tatterson v. KehrleinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Morey v. PaladiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.