undoubtedly rule (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

undoubtedly rule in California

13 California opinions name it 2 courts 1906–1980 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Bondy v. Phoenix Indemnity Co.green
calctapp · 1953 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1958–1962
2 sentences

1962This is undoubtedly the rule where the language is ambiguous or subject to different interpretations, but '(n)o term of a contract is either uncertain or ambiguous if its meaning can be ascertained by fair inference from the other terms thereof. ’ (Bondy v. Phoenix Indemnity Go. (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 702, 704 [ 254 P.2d 148 ].) Such we believe is the situation here. ’ ’ Appellant’s contention is without merit.

1962This is undoubtedly the rule where the language is ambiguous or subject to different interpretations, but '(n)o term of a contract is either uncertain or ambiguous if its meaning can be ascertained by fair inference from the other terms thereof. ’ (Bondy v. Phoenix Indemnity Go. (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 702, 704 [ 254 P.2d 148 ].) Such we believe is the situation here. ’ ’ Appellant’s contention is without merit.

22
People v. Lentred
cal · 1975 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980A condition of probation which “forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.” (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ].) Defendant’s conviction involved grand theft in which he used false financial statements to obtain bank loans.

1980A condition of probation which “forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.” (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 905 , 541 P.2d 545 ].) Defendant’s conviction involved grand theft in which he used false financial statements to obtain bank loans.

11
Fleming v. Dolfingreen
cal · 1931 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1933–1933
2 sentences

1933There is no evidence in the record of such demand and the point is therefore not well taken. ’ ’ (Fleming v. Dolfin, 214 Cal. 269, 271 [ 4 Pac. (2d) 776, 777 , 78 A. L.

1933There is no evidence in the record of such demand and the point is therefore not well taken. ’ ’ (Fleming v. Dolfin, 214 Cal. 269, 271 [ 4 Pac. (2d) 776, 777 , 78 A. L.

11
Capelli v. Donderogreen
cal · 1899 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1931–1931
2 sentences

1931While this is undoubtedly the rule, yet as said in Capelli v. Dondero, 123 Cal. 324, 328 [ 55 Pac. 1057 ], in an action to reform a deed: “The principal question raised by appellant is that the evidence does not support the findings.

1931While this is undoubtedly the rule, yet as said in Capelli v. Dondero, 123 Cal. 324, 328 [ 55 Pac. 1057 ], in an action to reform a deed: “The principal question raised by appellant is that the evidence does not support the findings.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (23)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Gregor green
calctapp · 1956
2 sentences

1957(See People v. Braun, 14 Cal.2d 1 [ 92 P.2d 402 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639 [ 86 P.2d 811 ]; People v. Gregor, 141 Cal.App.2d 711 [ 297 P.2d 734 ].) The attorney general does suggest that some of these questions were proper to show a common scheme, plan or design for committing burglary.

1957(See People v. Braun, 14 Cal.2d 1 [ 92 P.2d 402 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639 [ 86 P.2d 811 ]; People v. Gregor, 141 Cal.App.2d 711 [ 297 P.2d 734 ].) The attorney general does suggest that some of these questions were proper to show a common scheme, plan or design for committing burglary.

11957–1957
People v. Braun green
cal · 1939
2 sentences

1957(See People v. Braun, 14 Cal.2d 1 [ 92 P.2d 402 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639 [ 86 P.2d 811 ]; People v. Gregor, 141 Cal.App.2d 711 [ 297 P.2d 734 ].) The attorney general does suggest that some of these questions were proper to show a common scheme, plan or design for committing burglary.

1957(See People v. Braun, 14 Cal.2d 1 [ 92 P.2d 402 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639 [ 86 P.2d 811 ]; People v. Gregor, 141 Cal.App.2d 711 [ 297 P.2d 734 ].) The attorney general does suggest that some of these questions were proper to show a common scheme, plan or design for committing burglary.

11957–1957
People v. David green
cal · 1939
2 sentences

1957(See People v. Braun, 14 Cal.2d 1 [ 92 P.2d 402 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639 [ 86 P.2d 811 ]; People v. Gregor, 141 Cal.App.2d 711 [ 297 P.2d 734 ].) The attorney general does suggest that some of these questions were proper to show a common scheme, plan or design for committing burglary.

1957(See People v. Braun, 14 Cal.2d 1 [ 92 P.2d 402 ]; People v. David, 12 Cal.2d 639 [ 86 P.2d 811 ]; People v. Gregor, 141 Cal.App.2d 711 [ 297 P.2d 734 ].) The attorney general does suggest that some of these questions were proper to show a common scheme, plan or design for committing burglary.

11957–1957
People v. Talkington red
calctapp · 1935
2 sentences

1950(People v. Russell, 34 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 94 P.2d 400 ]; People v. Talkington, 8 Cal.App.2d 75 [ 47 P.2d 368 ] ; People v. Mach, 115 Cal.App. 588 [ 2 P.2d 209 ] ; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436 ; Mintzer v. Wilson, 21 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 68 P.2d 370 ].) But was it prejudicial under the circumstances of this case?

1950(People v. Russell, 34 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 94 P.2d 400 ]; People v. Talkington, 8 Cal.App.2d 75 [ 47 P.2d 368 ] ; People v. Mach, 115 Cal.App. 588 [ 2 P.2d 209 ] ; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436 ; Mintzer v. Wilson, 21 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 68 P.2d 370 ].) But was it prejudicial under the circumstances of this case?

11950–1950
People v. Russell green
calctapp · 1939
2 sentences

1950(People v. Russell, 34 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 94 P.2d 400 ]; People v. Talkington, 8 Cal.App.2d 75 [ 47 P.2d 368 ] ; People v. Mach, 115 Cal.App. 588 [ 2 P.2d 209 ] ; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436 ; Mintzer v. Wilson, 21 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 68 P.2d 370 ].) But was it prejudicial under the circumstances of this case?

1950(People v. Russell, 34 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 94 P.2d 400 ]; People v. Talkington, 8 Cal.App.2d 75 [ 47 P.2d 368 ] ; People v. Mach, 115 Cal.App. 588 [ 2 P.2d 209 ] ; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436 ; Mintzer v. Wilson, 21 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 68 P.2d 370 ].) But was it prejudicial under the circumstances of this case?

11950–1950
Mintzer v. Wilson green
calctapp · 1937
2 sentences

1950(People v. Russell, 34 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 94 P.2d 400 ]; People v. Talkington, 8 Cal.App.2d 75 [ 47 P.2d 368 ] ; People v. Mach, 115 Cal.App. 588 [ 2 P.2d 209 ] ; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436 ; Mintzer v. Wilson, 21 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 68 P.2d 370 ].) But was it prejudicial under the circumstances of this case?

1950(People v. Russell, 34 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 94 P.2d 400 ]; People v. Talkington, 8 Cal.App.2d 75 [ 47 P.2d 368 ] ; People v. Mach, 115 Cal.App. 588 [ 2 P.2d 209 ] ; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436 ; Mintzer v. Wilson, 21 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 68 P.2d 370 ].) But was it prejudicial under the circumstances of this case?

11950–1950
People v. Boscovitch neutral
cal · 1862
1 sentence

1950(People v. Russell, 34 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 94 P.2d 400 ]; People v. Talkington, 8 Cal.App.2d 75 [ 47 P.2d 368 ] ; People v. Mach, 115 Cal.App. 588 [ 2 P.2d 209 ] ; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436 ; Mintzer v. Wilson, 21 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 68 P.2d 370 ].) But was it prejudicial under the circumstances of this case?

11950–1950
People v. Mack green
calctapp · 1931
2 sentences

1950(People v. Russell, 34 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 94 P.2d 400 ]; People v. Talkington, 8 Cal.App.2d 75 [ 47 P.2d 368 ] ; People v. Mach, 115 Cal.App. 588 [ 2 P.2d 209 ] ; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436 ; Mintzer v. Wilson, 21 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 68 P.2d 370 ].) But was it prejudicial under the circumstances of this case?

1950(People v. Russell, 34 Cal.App.2d 665 [ 94 P.2d 400 ]; People v. Talkington, 8 Cal.App.2d 75 [ 47 P.2d 368 ] ; People v. Mach, 115 Cal.App. 588 [ 2 P.2d 209 ] ; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436 ; Mintzer v. Wilson, 21 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 68 P.2d 370 ].) But was it prejudicial under the circumstances of this case?

11950–1950
Donovan v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society neutral
calctapp · 1928
1 sentence

1932(Dellepiane v. Hynes, supra; Donovan v. Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc,, 90 *77 Cal. App. 489 [ 265 Pac. 995 ].) Appellant next admits that in reference to the assignment of an ordinary non-negotiable chose in action, the assignee must give notice to the debtor in order to perfect his title against the debtor, but contends that such rule has no application to a chose in action in the nature of a bank deposit evidenced by a pass-book.

11932–1932
Klinger v. Modesto Fruit Co., Inc. green
calctapp · 1930
2 sentences

1931This is undoubtedly the rule, and it is fully discussed in the recent case of Klinger v. Modesto Fruit Co., 107 Cal. App. 97 [ 290 Pac. 127 ]; but it was there held also that the principal who desires to take advantage of the rule must raise the point in the trial court by demurrer, motion or otherwise; and that a failure to demand such an election in the lower court constitutes a waiver of the right.

1931This is undoubtedly the rule, and it is fully discussed in the recent case of Klinger v. Modesto Fruit Co., 107 Cal. App. 97 [ 290 Pac. 127 ]; but it was there held also that the principal who desires to take advantage of the rule must raise the point in the trial court by demurrer, motion or otherwise; and that a failure to demand such an election in the lower court constitutes a waiver of the right.

11931–1931
Tracy v. City of Mt. Pleasant neutral
iowa · 1914
2 sentences

1929Great latitude is allowed in the cross-examination of witnesses who have testified to the market value of land. (10 Cal. Jur. 1028.) In City of Stockton v. Ellingwood, supra, the following language is quoted from Tracy v. City of Mount Pleasant, 165 Iowa, 435 [ 146 N. W. 78 ]: “Undoubtedly inquiry would be proper on cross-examination as to what purpose a witness thought the property available for and his notion of its market value for such purpose.” For the purpose of testing the knowledge of such witnesses and impeaching their opinions as to values the court permitted the plaintiff to ask the

1929Great latitude is allowed in the cross-examination of witnesses who have testified to the market value of land. (10 Cal. Jur. 1028.) In City of Stockton v. Ellingwood, supra, the following language is quoted from Tracy v. City of Mount Pleasant, 165 Iowa, 435 [ 146 N. W. 78 ]: “Undoubtedly inquiry would be proper on cross-examination as to what purpose a witness thought the property available for and his notion of its market value for such purpose.” For the purpose of testing the knowledge of such witnesses and impeaching their opinions as to values the court permitted the plaintiff to ask the

11929–1929
Wood v. Strother green
cal · 1888
1 sentence

1927Dec. 110 ].) Upon this phase of the matter both parties refer to Wood v. Strother, 76 Cal. 545 [ 9 Am.

11927–1927
Green v. Hebbard neutral
cal · 1892
2 sentences

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

11927–1927
County of San Joaquin v. Superior Court neutral
cal · 1893
2 sentences

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

11927–1927
Gutierrez v. Superior Court of San Francisco neutral
cal · 1895
2 sentences

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

11927–1927
People ex rel. Gesford v. Superior Court green
cal · 1896
2 sentences

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

11927–1927
C. Scheerer & Co. v. Hutton neutral
calctapp · 1908
2 sentences

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

11927–1927
Aldrich v. Superior Court green
cal · 1901
2 sentences

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

1927This is undoubtedly the rule. (16 Cal. Jur., p. 787; Aldrich v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. 12 [ 66 Pac. 846 ]; People v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 466 [ 46 Pac. 383 ]; Sheerer & Co. v. Hutton, 7 Cal. App. 524 [ 94 Pac. 849 ]; Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 106 Cal. 171 [ 39 Pac. 530 ]; San Joaquin County v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 602 [ 33 Pac. 482 ]; Green v. Hebbard, 95 Cal. 39 [ 30 Pac. 202 ]; People v. Pratt, 28 Cal. 106 [ 87 Am.

11927–1927
Lewis v. Clarkin green
cal · 1861
1 sentence

1908(Lewis v. Clarkin, 18 Cal. 399 ; Shain v. Forbes, 82 Cal. 577 , [ 23 Pac. 198 ] ; Bailey Loan Co. v. Hall, 110 Cal. 490 , [ 42 Pac. 962 ].) This is undoubtedly the rule in this state, subject perhaps to the qualification that the defendants held liable are entitled to be protected against any material variance between the pleadings and the proof.

11908–1908
Shain v. Forbes green
cal · 1890
2 sentences

1908(Lewis v. Clarkin, 18 Cal. 399 ; Shain v. Forbes, 82 Cal. 577 , [ 23 Pac. 198 ] ; Bailey Loan Co. v. Hall, 110 Cal. 490 , [ 42 Pac. 962 ].) This is undoubtedly the rule in this state, subject perhaps to the qualification that the defendants held liable are entitled to be protected against any material variance between the pleadings and the proof.

1908(Lewis v. Clarkin, 18 Cal. 399 ; Shain v. Forbes, 82 Cal. 577 , [ 23 Pac. 198 ] ; Bailey Loan Co. v. Hall, 110 Cal. 490 , [ 42 Pac. 962 ].) This is undoubtedly the rule in this state, subject perhaps to the qualification that the defendants held liable are entitled to be protected against any material variance between the pleadings and the proof.

11908–1908
Bailey Loan Co. v. Hall green
cal · 1895
2 sentences

1908(Lewis v. Clarkin, 18 Cal. 399 ; Shain v. Forbes, 82 Cal. 577 , [ 23 Pac. 198 ] ; Bailey Loan Co. v. Hall, 110 Cal. 490 , [ 42 Pac. 962 ].) This is undoubtedly the rule in this state, subject perhaps to the qualification that the defendants held liable are entitled to be protected against any material variance between the pleadings and the proof.

1908(Lewis v. Clarkin, 18 Cal. 399 ; Shain v. Forbes, 82 Cal. 577 , [ 23 Pac. 198 ] ; Bailey Loan Co. v. Hall, 110 Cal. 490 , [ 42 Pac. 962 ].) This is undoubtedly the rule in this state, subject perhaps to the qualification that the defendants held liable are entitled to be protected against any material variance between the pleadings and the proof.

11908–1908
Comptoir D'Escompte De Paris v. Dresbach green
cal · 1888
2 sentences

1906(Comptoir d’Escompte v. Dresbach, 78 Cal. 15 , [ 20 Pac. 28 ]; Dingley v. McDonald, 124 Cal. 90 , [56 *589 Pac. 790].) But the purpose of the rule is the protection of the creditor, who, if the cheek be dishonored, may still recover from his debtor.

1906(Comptoir d’Escompte v. Dresbach, 78 Cal. 15 , [ 20 Pac. 28 ]; Dingley v. McDonald, 124 Cal. 90 , [56 *589 Pac. 790].) But the purpose of the rule is the protection of the creditor, who, if the cheek be dishonored, may still recover from his debtor.

11906–1906
Dingley v. McDonald green
cal · 1899
1 sentence

1906(Comptoir d’Escompte v. Dresbach, 78 Cal. 15 , [ 20 Pac. 28 ]; Dingley v. McDonald, 124 Cal. 90 , [56 *589 Pac. 790].) But the purpose of the rule is the protection of the creditor, who, if the cheek be dishonored, may still recover from his debtor.

11906–1906

Where else courts name it

CA 13 (1906–1980) NY 11 (1863–1933) MO 7 (1871–1965) TN 6 (1922–1965) IL 6 (1880–1963) MI 5 (1913–1938) NE 4 (1902–1940) IA 4 (1895–1914) TX 3 (1849–1932) AR 3 (1911–1942) DE 2 (1962–1962) WA 2 (1927–1930) AL 2 (1906–1915) UT 2 (1932–1932) VT 2 (1912–2016) ND 2 (1925–1950) CT 2 (1918–1930) WY 2 (1875–1979) PA 2 (1865–1868) FL 2 (1911–2004) IN 2 (1891–1947)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check