Curtin v. Kowalsky
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial.
The action is to recover the sum due upon a money judgment. The complaint alleges that on January 4, 1894, one Joseph E. Shain recovered judgment in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco against the defendant for a sum of money stated; that the judgment was duly entered on January 4, 1895; that on August 15, 1895, said Shain assigned the judgment to plaintiff, and that it has not been paid, either in whole or in part. The action was begun on December 20, 1899, nearly five years after the entry…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Poorman v. D. O. Mills & Co.California Supreme Court · 1868
- Clemens v. LuceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Monroe v. FohlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Wright & Co. v. LevyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Hook v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Overton v. WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Anglo-California Trust Co. v. Oakland RailwaysCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- King v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Painter v. BerglundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Carter v. Brooms (In Re Brooms)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.