Hellman Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. Armstrong
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtConrey, P. J.
This action was brought by respondent to recover judgment against appellant on a promissory note made and executed by appellant to one E. E. Hewlett, dated March 21, 1913, for the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, due nine months after date. Defendant appeals from the judgment.
The plaintiff sued as pledgee of the note, alleging that the same had been indorsed and delivered to it by Hewlett as security for certain notes executed by him. The trial court found that the consideration for the Armstrong note, as between the defendant and Hewlett, had wholly failed; and also held that that was a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Eames v. CrosierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Fowles v. National Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Blochman Commercial & Savings Bank v. MorettiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Eastman v. Sunset Park Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
- Hays v. PlummerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Russell v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Schwarz v. AverySupreme Court of Vermont · 1943
- Jenkins v. Continental Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1926
- Jones v. CourtsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- Sheffer v. GriffithsUtah Supreme Court · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.