Legal Opinion

McClung v. Camp

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 17, 1933No. Docket No. 8819PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

This is a motion under Rule V, section 3, of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment upon the ground that the appeal was taken for delay only.

The plaintiff was the sole payee of a promissory note and took the stand on his own behalf and testified that he owned the note, that the defendants, the makers on the note, executed it, and as to the balance due and unpaid. Defendants asked on cross-examination: “Mr. McClung, did you or Mrs. McClung give anything of value to the defendants or either of them, for the promissory note…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. Excelsior Water & Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
  2. Braly v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Sandoval v. Southern California Enterprises Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API