Legal Opinion
Cashman v. Harrison
California Supreme Court
Decided July 20, 1891No. 13289PublishedCited by 21 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
— This action is by the payee against the drawer of a bill of exchange, of which the following is a copy: —
“$2,019.70.
“ San Francisco, December 29, 1881.
“Pay to the order of James Cashman $2,019.70, gold coin of the United States, value received, and charge the same to account of C. H. Harrison.”
“ To R. S. Howland, San Francisco. No.”
Of the defenses pleaded, two are alternately insisted upon here, viz.: 1. That the instrument was intended to effect merely an equitable assignment of a portion of a fund, and therefore is not what it purports to be; or 2. That if it be considered and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mandeville v. WelchSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Commercial Bank v. HughesNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Harris v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Attorney-General v. Continental Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Tiernan v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Canal-Randolph Anaheim, Inc. v. WilkoskiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Guggenhime & Co. v. LamantiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Goldman v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Seth v. Lew HingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Estate of LissnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.