Gold v. Maxwell
California Court of Appeal
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
- Nichols v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Goldring v. GoldringCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Dankert v. Lamb Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1956
- Cooper v. CooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Estate of GoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- In Re Phoenix H.California Supreme Court · 2009
- Strutt v. Ontario Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- People v. Bestline Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- In the Interest of L.R.M.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1989
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.