Legal Opinion

Hildreth v. Williams

California Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 1893No. 19,125PublishedCited by 5 opinions

APPEAL from Superior Court, San Diego County; E. S. Torrance, Judge. Action by Hugh R. Hildreth against Henry A. Williams. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

1Opinion of the Court

SEARLS, C.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $350, as an attorney’s fee in an action in equity to enforce a pledge upon certain stocks given to secure the payment of a promissory note made by defendant to plaintiff for $3,500. The case comes up on the judgment-roll. The promissory note was in the usual form, with this addition: “And I further agree that, in the event of suit being brought against me, then there shall be added to any judgment against me, rendered in said suit, as counsel fees, -an additional sum of- per centum, in like gold coin, upon *142the amount of the…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mascarel v. RaffourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Monroe v. FohlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Alden v. PryalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Rickards v. HutchinsonNevada Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Citizens Nat. Bank of Orange, Va. v. WaughCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1935
  2. Mason v. LuceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. McCornick v. SwemUtah Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Byers v. Bellan-Price Investment Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1897
  5. Byers v. Bellan-Price Investment Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1897

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

Powered by the Exa API