Ehman v. Moore
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtShoemaker, J.
Defendants Louis C. and Eduarda S. Moore appeal from a money judgment for plaintiff John B. Ehman in an action to recover on a promissory note.
Appellants’ sole contention is that the trial court erred in terminating the trial and ordering judgment for respondent before appellants had had an opportunity to complete their defense. Under this general assignment of error, appellants specify that the trial court improperly ruled that the parol evidence rule precluded it from receiving appellants’ proffered evidence bearing upon three separate defenses : (1) that the promissory note sued upon was a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Datta v. StaabCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Alexander v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Bank of America v. DowdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- In Re SalazarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Firemen's Insurance v. IndermillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Maria P. v. RilesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Jameson v. DestaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
- People v. SullivanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Foust v. San Jose Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Gutierrez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.