Findlay v. Pott

63 P. 694, 131 Cal. 385, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1138
California Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1901·No. S.F. No. 2388.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

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 *Page 386 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. 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 be 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.

1 28 Am. St. Rep. 94.

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

Findlay v. Pott, 63 P. 694, 131 Cal. 385, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1138 (Cal. 1901).

63 P. 694 (Findlay v. Pott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McEwen v. Black
1915 OK 65 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. McCoy & Spivey Bros.
1912 OK 177 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Cotton v. John Deere Plow Co.
1904 OK 89 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1904)