Legal Opinion

Fall v. Lincoln Mortgage Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 27, 1931No. Docket No. 4289PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JAMISON, J., pro tem.

This is an action for money had and received. Defendant answered denying the allegations of the complaint and setting up the provisions of sections 337, subdivision 1, 338, subdivision 4, and 339, subdivision 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure in bar of the plaintiff’s cause of action.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence defendant moved for a nonsuit, which the court did not pass upon until after defendant had produced his evidence and after the evidence of both plaintiff and defendant was all in. Thereupon the court granted the motion for a nonsuit and rendered judgment…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Estate of CasparCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Thomas v. Pacific Beach Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Carter v. CantyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Vickrey v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Bass v. HueterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Nulsen v. NulsenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  2. Stafford v. Oil Tool Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API