Capital Savings Bank v. Reel
This text of 62 Cal. 419 (Capital Savings Bank v. Reel) 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.
Opinion
There was evidence tending to show that the note in suit was paid by Reel & McGraw and surrendered to them, although subsequently retaken by the plaintiff from Reel & McGraw, and held by it without the knowledge or consent of the defendant Cave. If the jury believed such evidence, notwithstanding the evidence in conflict, the verdict was correct. In such case we will not disturb the verdict. There was evidence, also, tending to show that the plaintiff had sufficient property of Reel & McGraw attached to secure the [426]*426payment of the note, and that the attachment was released without the knowledge or consent of the defendant Cave. Cave being an accommodation maker, should not, under such circumstances, be injured by the acts of plaintiff.
No error appearing, the order is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
62 Cal. 419, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-savings-bank-v-reel-cal-1882.