Legal Opinion
Moyses v. Bell
Washington Supreme Court
Decided March 23, 1911No. 9089PublishedCited by 16 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Tallman, J., entered February 21, 1910, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on a promissory note.
1Opinion of the CourtCrow, J.
Action by Ben Moyses and Charles B. Smith against Charles N. Bell, to recover principal and interest alleged to be due upon a promissory note. On trial without a jury, judgment was entered in plaintiffs’ favor, from which the defendant has appealed.
The note reads as follows:
“$3200 Mountain Home, Idaho, February 7th, 1908.
“On or before one year after date I promise to pay to the order of the Great Western Beet Sugar Company thirty-two hundred & 00-100 dollars. Value received. Interest .... per cent.
“Due February 7, 1909. Chas. N. Bell.”
The respondents alleged they were holders in due course.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Jennings v. ToddSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Kost v. BenderMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Davis v. . McCreadyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Tradesmen's National Bank v. CurtisNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Miller v. OttawayMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. GillespieCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1985
- German American Bank v. WrightWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- Wheat v. GossIndiana Supreme Court · 1923
- Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. LimprightWashington Supreme Court · 1916
- First National Bank v. CareySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.