Legal Opinion

Chafoin v. Rich

California Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1891No. 13859PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C.

This is an action upon a promissory

note which reads as follows:—

“ $4,000. Mayfield, June 16,1883.
“ Three months after date, we promise to pay to the order of Martin Chafoin four thousand dollars, at two per cent per month from date. Value received. Interest to be paid semi-annually. “ A. G. Rich.
“Michel Dubs.”

The defendants answered to the complaint separately. Defendant Dubs, by his answer, denied that he executed the note for a good and valuable consideration, or for any consideration whatever, or that he was indebted to the plaintiff, for or on account of the note, in the sum…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mulford v. EstudilloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Chafoin v. RichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cowdery v. London Etc. BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Lial v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  3. Weaver v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Phillips v. PattersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  5. Wier v. YatesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923

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

Powered by the Exa API