Putnam v. Putnam
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
NOURSE, P.
The plaintiff commenced two actions to *762recover sums alleged to be due under a written contract. The defendant answered, denying that the sums claimed were due, and setting up special defenses, one of which was the plea that these actions should abate the outcome of another action involving the same subject matter then pending on appeal. All defenses were summarily denied; the two actions were consolidated for trial, and plaintiff had judgment as prayed.
A brief statement of facts will suffice. In 1923 the parties, then husband and wife, entered into a written property settlement…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Sutphin v. SpeikCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Tally v. GanahlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Wells v. LloydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Gore v. BingamanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Allen v. BryantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.