Legal Opinion
O'Neil v. Magner
California Supreme Court
Decided December 6, 1889No. 13090PublishedCited by 24 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
Action on the following promissory note:—
“ $12,000. San Francisco, May 1, 1887.
“On demand, after date, for value received, I promise to pay Margaret Mahony or order the sum of twelve thousand dollars in United States gold coin.
“ Denis Magner.”
Defense, the statute of limitations. The action was commenced more than nine years after the date of the note. The only question in the case is as to the time when the note matured and the statute commenced to run.
The court below held that the action was barred, and rendered judgment for the defendant.
*633The appellant concedes that if this is a note payable…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hatchings v. EdmandsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Fenno v. GayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Cousins v. PartridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Brummagim v. TallantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by24 opinions
- Clunin v. First Federal Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
- Boyd v. BuchananMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Trigg v. ArnottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Shuman v. Citizens State BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914
- Sturdivant v. McCorleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.