Tobelman v. Hildebrandt
California Supreme Court
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
- In re Estate of StottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- Reynolds v. BrumagimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Grady v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by16 opinions
- Security-First National Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Lataillade v. OreñaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Estate of SimontonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Rafferty v. KearneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Lazzarone v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.