Legal Opinion

Tobelman v. Hildebrandt

California Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 1887No. 9597PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Searls, C.

This is an action to recover upon a promissory note, alleged to have been made by defendant Hildebrandt to August Tittel, the testator of plaintiffs. Judgment of nonsuit was rendered, from which, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiffs appeal. The complaint alleges that on the twentieth day of August, 1866, August Tittel, in consideration of thirteen thousand dollars, sold and conveyed to defendant Hildebrandt a lot of land on Sutter Street, San Francisco; that defendant paid in cash three thousand dollars, and made his promissory note for the sum of ten thousand dollars,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re Estate of StottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
  2. Reynolds v. BrumagimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Grady v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Security-First National Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Lataillade v. OreñaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Estate of SimontonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Rafferty v. KearneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Lazzarone v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

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