Legal Opinion

Bramante v. Krug

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 9, 1956No. Civ. No. 16842PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

AGEE, J. pro tem.*

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendant Krug. Judgment against defendant Hutchins was entered by default and he is not a party to this appeal.

Between July, 1949, and March, 1950, plaintiff loaned to defendant Hutchins a total sum of $27,000. Defendant Krug had also advanced substantial amounts of money to Hutchins. Around April 1, 1950, Krug made and delivered to Hutchins his check in the sum of $6,500, postdated April 3, 1950. This cheek was issued and delivered subject to a condition precedent. This condition was never fulfilled and *772Krug has a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Merchs. Nat'l Bank of Santa Monica v. BentelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Oppenheimer v. Radke & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1912
  3. Pacific Acceptance Corp. v. GoodmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. Bank of Italy v. Welbilt Auto Body Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
  5. Peaples Finance & Thift Co. v. Matthews Fruit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Roth v. Guardian Thrift & LoanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API