Pierce v. Schaden
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order granting the plaintiff a new trial, in the Sixth District Court, County of Sacramento. Denson, J. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Thornton, J. :
Action against Schaden and Fuller as indorsers of a promissory note. The note was made by J. A. Gfardiner in their favor in February, 1876, who afterward indorsed and delivered it to the plaintiff. The complaint sets forth that the note was, on *407the day it became due, presented to the maker and payment demanded, and that the maker refused to pay it; of all of which the defendants were duly notified.
The defendant, Fuller, made no defense. Schaden answered, denying that the note was ever presented to the maker and payment demanded or refused, and further denied that he ever had any…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Phelps v. Union Copper Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by15 opinions
- Bates v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Stanley v. McElrathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- In re the Estate of CarrigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Pico v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Beeckenridge v. CrockerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.