Griffith v. Lewin
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County and from an order denying a new trial. B. P. TJnangst, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
COOPER, C.
Action to recover on a promissory note. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. The case is here on the judgment-roll and a hill of exceptions. The court below found that the note had been fully paid, and the plaintiff contends that this finding is not supported by the evidence and we think the contention will have to he sustained.
On Hay 22, 1893, John H. Hughes, now deceased, made his *620promissory note to plaintiff for $1,174.35, due one year after date, with interest thereon until paid. On September 30, 1895,…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Light v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Barcroft v. LivacichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Vesel v. Polich Trading Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1934
- Griffith v. LewinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Light v. StevensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.