Patten v. Ray

California Supreme Court

Patten v. Ray

4 Cal. 287

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 15, 1854

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Cal. 287 (Patten v. Ray) 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

Patten v. Ray, 4 Cal. 287 (Cal. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Ch. J. Murray

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. J. Heydeneeldt concurred.

The Court below properly decided that a foreign judgment was not * ‘ a contract, obligation or liability for the payment of money, founded on an instrument of writing executed out of this S tate, ” within tho meaning of the Statute of Limitations. We have already decided at this Term

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

Mr. Ch. J. Murray

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. J. Heydeneeldt concurred.

The Court below properly decided that a foreign judgment was not * ‘ a contract, obligation or liability for the payment of money, founded on an instrument of writing executed out of this S tate, ” within tho meaning of the Statute of Limitations. We have already decided at this Term

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cal. 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patten-v-ray-cal-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack