Legal Opinion

Piercy v. De Fillipes

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 18, 1963No. Civ. No. 7074PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGriffin, P. J.

Plaintiff-appellant, on an assigned promissory note for collection from one Daniel Jay, brought this action on the note signed by defendants-respondents Roeco De Fillipes (hereinafter referred to as Roeco) and Joe De Fillipes for $3,500. It was dated February 4, 1957, and was payable $75 per month, plus 6 per cent interest beginning March 4, 1957. The note provided that if interest was not paid when due the whole sum would become immediately due and payable. Defendants defaulted in the payments due after reducing the principal balance to $3,326.54 as of May 1, 1957. Demand for payment was…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sivers v. SiversCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Grant v. the Aerodraulics Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Rottman v. HevenerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  4. Dollar v. International Banking Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1910
  5. Greathouse v. DalenoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Polk v. PolkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  2. Estate of HormanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  3. People v. TennesseeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Malenko v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API