Legal Opinion
Colton Land & Water Co. v. Raynor
California Supreme Court
Decided July 1, 1881No. 7,472PublishedCited by 21 opinions
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, in the (Superior Court of San Bernardino. County. Spencer, J.
1Opinion of the Court
Thornton, J.:
A demurrer on various grounds was interposed to the amended cross-complaint of Raynor. We have examined this cross-complaint carefully, and we cannot perceive any error in the Court’s overruling the demurrer to it. It states a case clearly demanding the interposition of the Court.
It is objected that the evidence allowed in regard to exhibit B was improperly admitted. The paper referred to is in these words:
“ For value received, I hereby sell and assign to Wm. H. Mintzer, J. C. Peacock, W. R. Fox, and James Cameron, all my right and interest in the within instrument and contract.
“F…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Curtiss v. SpragueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Leavenworth v. PackerNew York Supreme Court · 1867
- Gleason v. MoenThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
- Boston Mills v. EullThe Superior Court of New York City · 1869
- Ames v. RathbunNew York Supreme Court · 1869
3Cited by21 opinions
- Moore v. CoppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Taylor v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Sterling v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Pettengill v. BlackmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Brooks v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.