Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

JAMES W. FINDLAY, Respondent, v. FRED S. POTT and PAUL P. AUSTIN,Appellants.

SMITH, C.

This action was brought by plantiff, as assignee of Field, to recover ten thousand dollars alleged to be due on four promissory notes, executed in pursuance of the contract involved in Field v. Austin, ante, p. 379, just decided, and belonging to the same series as the notes sued on in that case. The notes all contain stipulations for attorneys' fees in case of suit, and are, therefore, non-negotiable. (First Nat. Bank v. Babcock, 94 Cal. 96 ; First Nat. Bank v. Falkenhan, 94 Cal. 141; Adams v. Seaman, 82 Cal. 636; Chase v. Whitmore, 68 Cal. 545; Civ. Code, secs. 3087, 3093.) Otherwise the case is similar to Field v. Austin, ante, p. 379; and on the authority of that case the judgment and order denying a new trial should be reversed.

28 Am. St. Rep. 94.

Gray, C., and Chipman, C., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order denying a new trial are reversed.

Temple, J., Henshaw, J., McFarland, J.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FINDLAY v. POTT
(Jan 15, 1901)