Petree v. Harris

California Supreme Court

Petree v. Harris

1 Cal. Unrep. 152

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1864

DocketNo. 4099

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 152 (Petree v. Harris) 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

Petree v. Harris, 1 Cal. Unrep. 152 (Cal. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWYER, J.-

There was no parol agreement to reduce interest on an existing debt, as claimed by the appellant. The court finds as facts that the transaction was a loan of money from Harris to Petree upon interest at two per cent per month —that instead of taking a new note and mortgage, Plarris, with the assent of Petree, as security for the loan, took an assignment of the note and mortgage to Yule, which Petree desired to take up with the borrowed money. And the testimony is amply sufficient to sustain the findings. The allegations of the complaint of Petree in one case, and the affirmative matter set up in Petree’s answer in the other, present the issues upon which the court made its findings.

As to the issue upon the amount tendered by Petree to Harris, the testimony was conflicting and we cannot disturb the finding. But on this issue, also, the finding seems to us to be supported by a preponderance of testimony.

The validity of the act of Congress making treasury notes a legal tender has already been upheld in the ease of Lick v. Faulkner [25 Cal. 404], and other eases at the present term.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Shafter, J.; Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.

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

SAWYER, J.-

There was no parol agreement to reduce interest on an existing debt, as claimed by the appellant. The court finds as facts that the transaction was a loan of money from Harris to Petree upon interest at two per cent per month —that instead of taking a new note and mortgage, Plarris, with the assent of Petree, as security for the loan, took an assignment of the note and mortgage to Yule, which Petree desired to take up with the borrowed money. And the testimony is amply sufficient to sustain the findings. The allegations of the complaint of Petree in one case, and the affirmative matter set up in Petree’s answer in the other, present the issues upon which the court made its findings.

As to the issue upon the amount tendered by Petree to Harris, the testimony was conflicting and we cannot disturb the finding. But on this issue, also, the finding seems to us to be supported by a preponderance of testimony.

The validity of the act of Congress making treasury notes a legal tender has already been upheld in the ease of Lick v. Faulkner [25 Cal. 404], and other eases at the present term.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Shafter, J.; Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petree-v-harris-cal-1864.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack