Legal Opinion

Schiff v. Pruitt

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 18, 1956No. Civ. 21530PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NOURSE (Paul), J. pro tem. *

By their amended and supplemental complaint in this action, respondents sought, through their first cause of action, to recover upon a promissory note in the sum of $20,000 executed by the defendant, and by a second cause of action to recover that amount upon a common count for money had and received.

The judgment of the lower court, from which defendant appeals, denied respondents recovery upon the promissory note sued upon in the first cause of action but granted respondents a judgment for the principal sum of $2,166.82 with interest thereon at the rate of 7 per…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lamb v. HerndonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  2. Martyn v. LeslieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  3. Jameson v. WarrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. Miley Petroleum Corp., Ltd. v. Amerada Petroleum Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1936

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. McConnell v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Diversified Enterprises, Inc. v. WestDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1962
  3. Thomassen v. CarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. CooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. Arneill Ranch v. PetitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API