California Supreme Court, 1901

Findlay v. Pott

California Supreme Court · Decided January 15, 1901 · SMITH, C.

63 P. 694; 131 Cal. 385; 1901 Cal. LEXIS 1138

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

McEwen v. Black (Okla. 1915)
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. McCoy & Spivey Bros. (Okla. 1912)
Cotton v. John Deere Plow Co. (Okla. 1904)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.