Legal Opinion
Parrino v. Rallis
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 28, 1931No. Docket No. 7755PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
The above action was brought upon a promissory note executed to plaintiff by defendants T. M. Rallis and L. Rallis, his wife. The instrument, which was for $1303, was dated August 2, 1926, and payable with interest on August 1, 1927. Some time before its date defendant T. M. Rallis became indebted for money loaned and services rendered by the plaintiff and others. The latter assigned their claims to the plaintiff, and the note was for the amount of the claims.
Defendant L. Rallis alleged, “that neither at the time of the execution of said note nor at any other time was there any…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Treadwell v. NickelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Fanning v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- MacDermot v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Gnarini v. Swiss American BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Ellison v. Jackson Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wine Packing Corp. of Cal. v. VossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Hollywood Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941
- Long v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Anglo California National Bank v. Far West Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- Garthofner v. EdmondsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.