Findlay v. Pott

California Supreme Court

Findlay v. Pott

131 Cal. 385

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1901

DocketS. F. No. 2388

StatusPublished

This text of 131 Cal. 385 (Findlay v. Pott) 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

Findlay v. Pott, 131 Cal. 385 (Cal. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, C.

This action was brought by plaintiff, as assignee of Field, to recover ten thousand dollars alleged to be due on four promissory notes, executed in pursuance of the [386]*386contract involved in Field v. Austin, ante, p. 379, just decided, and belonging to the same series as the notes sued on in that ease. The notes all contain stipulations for attorneys’ fees in case of suit, and are, therefore, non-negotiable. (First Nat. Bank v. Babcock, 94 Cal. 96¹; 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 he reversed.

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.

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

SMITH, C.

This action was brought by plaintiff, as assignee of Field, to recover ten thousand dollars alleged to be due on four promissory notes, executed in pursuance of the [386]*386contract involved in Field v. Austin, ante, p. 379, just decided, and belonging to the same series as the notes sued on in that ease. The notes all contain stipulations for attorneys’ fees in case of suit, and are, therefore, non-negotiable. (First Nat. Bank v. Babcock, 94 Cal. 96¹; 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 he reversed.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 Cal. 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/findlay-v-pott-cal-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack