Legal Opinion

Hollman v. Hollman

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 31, 1928No. Docket No. 6057PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

BURROUGHS, J., pro tem.

-This is an action upon a promissory note. Plaintiff recovered a judgment in the sum of $8,500 with also an attorney fee of $500. From said judgment the defendant appeals.

It is appellant’s contention that he was entitled to a credit on said promissory note of $5,350 which the court failed to give him. This claim depends upon the construction of a certain contract entered into by the parties hereto under the following circumstances:

Plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife. July 14, 1921, they entered into an agreement for the purpose of settling and determining…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United Iron Works v. Outer Harbor Dock & Wharf Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Provident Gold Mining Co. v. Manhattan SEC. Co.California Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Thompson v. Southern Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Alabama · 1902

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hamilton v. HollmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API