Clarke

Clarke v. Mohr

Caution
125 Cal. 540·1899 Cal. LEXIS 897·58 P. 176
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 8, 1899S. F. No. 1771California1,042 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

Motions to dismiss the appeals. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover judgment in her favor upon a promissory note executed by the defendant, Kate C. B3nne, and for its payment out of the sale of a certain security given therefor, and also for determining the rights of the other defendants in the proceeds of said sale. Mrs. Byrne filed an answer to this complaint den3dng its several allegations. Complaints in intervention were thereafter filed by H. I. Kowalsky and by Timothy Hurley, and to these complaints answers were filed by the plaintiff and by Mrs. Byrne. The cause was tried by the court and judgment entered June 20, 1898, “that the intervenor Henry I. Kowalsky have and recover from the defendant Florence Blythe Hinckley the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, and that plaintiff take nothing by this action, and that said intervenor, Timothy Hurley, take nothing by this action, and that this action be dismissed as to all the other defendants therein.” The motion for a new trial was denied December 2, 1898. From this order, and from the judgment, the plaintiff and the intervenor Hurley have appealed.

1. The defendants Byrne and the intervenor Kowalsky have moved to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.