Legal Opinion

Gold v. Maxwell

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 14, 1959No. Civ. 23686PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtValles, J.

Defendant Raksin appeals from a judgment for plaintiffs in an action on a promissory note dated January 1, 1956, for $3,000, payment of which Raksin guaranteed. Defendant Maxwell did not appear in the action. As a defense, Raksin pleaded fraud in the procurement of the note and the guaranty and a counterclaim.

The court found: 1. Due execution of the note. 2. No part of the principal or interest has been paid, and there is unpaid $3,000 principal and $180 interest. 3. The note was given to plaintiffs by Maxwell as part of the purchase price for shares of stock of Coda Productions, Inc., a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Nichols v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Goldring v. GoldringCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Dankert v. Lamb Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1956
  4. Cooper v. CooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. Estate of GoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. In Re Phoenix H.California Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Strutt v. Ontario Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  4. People v. Bestline Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
  5. In the Interest of L.R.M.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1989

14 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