¶1I am not prepared to say that the contract, as averred in the answer, or offered to be proved by the defendant, in any way contravenes the statute, or is in fraud of the methods devised by the Legislature. I think the testimony was prop*488erly excluded. The other points made in the briefs have been determined against the appellant in other cases before decided. I concur in the affirmance of the judgment.
32 Cal. 484
Nolan v. Reese
Decided July 1, 1867
California Supreme Court · decided 1867-07-01
The plaintiff recovered judgment in the Court below, and the defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1867-07-01
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 1921
1 district · 10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →