Legal Opinion

Burck v. Buchen

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 17, 1941No. Civ. 12545PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYork, P. J.

This action involves a forged promissory note for $25,000 dated March 21, 1938, due ninety days after date with interest at 6% per annum, in favor of George D. Smart and purportedly signed by Louis B. Mayer. On the reverse side of the note was a written guaranty of payment signed by the payee and a certificate of acknowledgment of appellant Buchen, a notary public, to the effect that on March 21, 1938, both Smart and Mayer personally appeared before him and acknowledged the execution of said note. As a matter of fact Mayer was not present when the acknowledgment was taken.

Bespondent Burck…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hatton v. HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Oakland Bank of Savings v. MurfeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Joost v. CraigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Anderson v. AronsohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Overacre v. BlakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bank of America v. DowdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Jordan v. O'ConnorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. McDonald v. PlumbCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Bank of America v. DowdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. In re Aerocolor, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API