Legal Opinion

Ferguson v. Dam

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 18, 1934No. Civ. No. 9033PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.

Plaintiff brought this action seeking to recover upon a promissory note. Plaintiff had judgment upon a trial by jury and from said judgment, defendant F. H. Dam appeals.

The complaint herein contained the usual allegations found in a complaint based upon a promissory note. The amended answer of defendant F. H. Dam set forth certain denials and further set forth certain affirmative allegations relating to the defense of want of consideration. At the close of the evidence, counsel for said defendant moved the trial court for an order permitting him to open and close the argument to the jury. The…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. People v. HickmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Lafargue v. United Railroad of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. East Bay Municipal Utility District v. KiefferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Aydlott v. Key System Transit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. Mendocino County v. PetersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kraft v. NemethCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  2. Eklund v. EklundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API