Legal Opinion
Birsner v. Bolles
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 18, 1971No. Civ. 28094PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TAYLOR, Acting P. J.
On this appeal by the payee of a promissory note from a judgment in favor of the maker, respondent, on the grounds of the statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 337, subd. 1), the only question is whether the trial court erred in excluding his proffered parol evidence.
The facts are not in dispute. On April 13, 1961, respondent, who was then 21 years old, executed a promissory note for $7,500 payable to appellant, her adoptive father. The note, on its face, stated that: it was executed for value received; interest would run from January 1, 1966; and it was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
- Masterson v. SineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Delta Dynamics, Inc. v. AriotoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Ellis v. KlaffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Mott v. ClineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- FPI Development, Inc. v. NakashimaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. First Mortgage InvestorsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Brawthen v. H & R BLOCK, INC.California Court of Appeal · 1972
- United Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Reeder Development Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- James G. Freeman & Associates, Inc. v. TannerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.