Legal Opinion
Main v. Casserly
California Supreme Court
Decided June 23, 1885No. 8913PublishedCited by 26 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
This is an action against the stockholders of a corporation, organized under the laws of the State, by the name of the “Lassen County Land and Flume Company,” to recover judgment upon a promissory note in words and figures following : —
“$8,250.00. San Fbancisco, July 25, 1877.
“Twelve months after date, for value received, the Lassen County Land and Flume Company promised to pay to the order of Henry Toomy eight thousand two hundred and fifty (8,250) dollars, in United States gold coin, without interest. In case of non-payment at maturity this note shall bear interest at ten per cent per annum…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pixley v. The Western Pac. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1867
- Foulke v. San Diego & Gila Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
- Hackenberry v. ShawIndiana Supreme Court · 1858
- White v. DanceIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Parvin v. HoopesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1844
3Cited by26 opinions
- Gribble v. Columbus Brewing Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Kincheloe Irrigating Co. v. Hahn Bros. & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1912
- Kelly v. Ning Yung Benevolent Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Pacific Bank v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Krutz v. RobbinsWashington Supreme Court · 1895
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.