Poorman v. D. O. Mills & Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth District, Sacramento County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSprague, J.
This is an action by an assignee against the makers of a certificate of deposit, for the sum of $1,500 in United States gold coin, which is set out in the complaint, as follows :
“$750. Bank of D. O. Mills & Co., )
“Sacramento, October 18, 1866. }
“George Rosenbaum has deposited in this bank $1,500, payable to himself or order, in United States gold coin, on return of this certificate properly indorsed.
“D. O. Mills & Co.”
This instrument possesses all the requisites of a negotiable promissory note, payable .on demand—and with respect to the questions involved in the suit, must be regarded and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Camp v. ScottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1842
- Mears v. GrahamIndiana Supreme Court · 1846
- Carll v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1852
- Payne v. Clark & Bros.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Culver v. ParishSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1851
3Cited by22 opinions
- Bedell v. HerringCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Hamilton v. AbadjianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Johnston Harvester Co v. McLeanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Wurzl v. HollowayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Lundin v. Hallmark Productions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1958
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.