Legal Opinion

Robb v. Cardoza

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 29, 1930No. Docket No. 7331PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

The above actions were brought on three promissory notes executed by the respective defendants to Big Creek Ranch, Inc., a corporation, and by it indorsed before maturity to the Pacific National Bank of San Francisco. The bank assigned the notes to plaintiff for collection.

As defenses the defendants in each action alleged that the note was given without consideration and that the bank was not a holder in due course. In two of the actions it was also alleged as a defense that the execution of the note was induced by false representations as to the financial conditions of the payee…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Title Guarantee Trust Co. v. . Pam.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
  2. Sargent v. ShumakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Smitton v. McCulloughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Goodale v. ThornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Bank of Polk v. WoodMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. H. D. Roosen Co. v. Pacific Radio Publishing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  2. Christian v. California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. O'Connell v. Federal Outfitting Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  4. Ross v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Robb v. CardozaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

2 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