Legal Opinion

People v. Hooper

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 22, 1935No. Crim. 2793PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GOULD, J., pro tem.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial after he was convicted by a jury on two counts, one for forgery, the other for a violation of section 132 of the Penal Code.

The ease has to do with a check for $50 dated April 28, 1932, drawn by defendant’s wife as payer, made payable to defendant, endorsed by him and delivered through the mail to his landlord upon his rent account. It is conceded that the check at the time of delivery to the landlord bore upon its back the words, “This check is for rent at 4145 Tracy Street from May 1, 1932.” When the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Baily v. KreutzmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Fisher v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. People v. ThornburghCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. People v. GeibelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  2. Hope v. Arrowhead & Puritas Waters, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. Gluckstein v. LipsettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  4. Intoximeters, Inc. v. YoungerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  5. People v. PereiraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989

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

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

Powered by the Exa API