Legal Opinion

Hammond Lumber Co. v. Kearsley

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 2, 1918No. Civ. No. 2103PublishedCited by 16 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

WORKS, J., pro tem.

The defendants Stocks, who are also the respondents, delivered to the appellant a certain promissory note secured by trust deed, after writing on the back thereof, over their signatures, the following: “For value received we hereby assign all of our interest in this promissory note of $757.66, dated April 23, 1913, signed by Francis T. Kearsley and C. B. Kearsley, to Hammond Lumber Company, a corporation.” Two of the respondents were payees of the note and the third was the wife of one of the others. This action was commenced against the makers of the note and against the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Evans v. Freeman.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  2. Rice v. StearnsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
  3. Hailey v. FalconerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
  4. Borden v. ClarkMichigan Supreme Court · 1873

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Diamond v. HaydisArizona Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Adolph Ramish, Inc. v. WoodruffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Kane v. EastmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. Prichard v. StrikeUtah Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Divelbiss v. BurnsMississippi Supreme Court · 1931

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