Beeman v. Lovett

California Supreme Court

Beeman v. Lovett

46 Cal. 387

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1873

DocketNo. 3,844

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 46 Cal. 387 (Beeman v. Lovett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beeman v. Lovett, 46 Cal. 387 (Cal. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

Mrs. Cameron, the payee of the note sued upon, gave no value for it; her assignee, the plaintiff here, holds it for her, and for the mere purpose of instituting this action.

The Court below erred upon the facts found in holding that McCarthy had authority from the defendant to deliver the note to the assignee of the plaintiff in satisfaction of the note of 1867, or for any other purpose.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court:

Mrs. Cameron, the payee of the note sued upon, gave no value for it; her assignee, the plaintiff here, holds it for her, and for the mere purpose of instituting this action.

The Court below erred upon the facts found in holding that McCarthy had authority from the defendant to deliver the note to the assignee of the plaintiff in satisfaction of the note of 1867, or for any other purpose.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Cal. 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beeman-v-lovett-cal-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack