Whyte v. Rosencrantz
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. William R. Daingerfield, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action for money had and received. Plaintiff is assignee of Adele Hesser, from whom it is alleged that defendant received the sum of five thousand dollars, under a verbal agreement, “upon the express condition that the defendant would immediately, upon meeting his majority, make, execute, and deliver to said Adele Hesser, as security for the payment of said sum, an assignment of all the right, title, and interest in and to” certain property situated in the city of San Francisco, of which defendant was the owner of an undivided one-eighth interest; it is alleged that at this time…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Craig v. Van BebberSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Jarboe v. SeverinIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Wilson v. MoriartyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- J. H. Coghill & Co. v. BoringCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Day v. New York Central RailroadCommission of Appeals · 1873
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Humphrey v. PopeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Isom v. Rex Crude Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
- In re the Guardianship of CampbellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
- Baum v. AlemanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Demateis v. VezuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.