Legal Opinion

Deacon v. Blodget

California Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1896No. L. A. No. 28PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County and from an order denying a new trial. A. R. Conklin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Britt,

C.—Plaintiff recovered judgment for the sum of eight hundred and thirty-five dollars and legal inter*418est thereon from November 23,1893, found by the court to be due to him from defendant upon the following written instrument:

“ I hereby promise to pay George H. Deacon, not later than one year after date, the sum of eight hundred and thirty-five dollars; said sum to be sooner paid if realized from the sale of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section six, township thirty-one S., range twenty-nine east, which said tract of land I hereby place in the hands of said Deacon…

2Cited by16 opinions

  1. San Diego Construction Co. v. MannixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Antonelle v. Kennedy & Shaw Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Ryan Aeronautical Co.California Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. Atlantic-Pacific Oil Co. v. Gas Development Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Victoria Steamship Co. v. Western Assurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1914

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