Figari v. Olcese
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT
Plaintiff brought this action to recover on a promissory note purporting to have been executed by the defendants.
The question here presented is whether the respondent, Emilio Olcese, signed the note as a maker, or merely as a witness to the signature of his eodefendant, G. B. Olcese.
The trial court found that respondent signed the instrument only as a witness.
The appeal is from the judgment in respondent’s favor, and is based upon the contention that the above finding is not supported by the evidence.
The instrument,. as reproduced in the record, shows the names of both defendants in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Dravo v. FabelSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Farmers' Natl. Gold Bank v. StoverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Spencer v. Alki Point Transportation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
- Casey v. GibbonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Kelly v. GillespieSupreme Court of Iowa · 1861
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Smellie v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1931
- Daniels v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Leonard v. Watsonville Community HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Daggett v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1957
- Cloud v. Market Street Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.