Legal Opinion

Caine v. Foreman

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 23, 1930No. Docket No. 4130PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.

The plaintiff, as assignee of the Credit Utility Corporation, obtained judgment in this action against the defendant as an indorser, in the sum of $6,000, balance due upon a promissory note for the principal sum of $10,000, executed by the Cox-Klemin Aircraft Corporation. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

Upon this appeal two grounds are relied upon by appellant as sufficient reasons for reversal: 1st. That there is no evidence that the note in controversy was, at the date of its maturity, presented to the Cox-Klemin Aircraft Corporation, the party primarily liable for payment, or that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Nelson v. GrondahlNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Hoffman v. HollingsworthIndiana Court of Appeals · 1894
  3. Thorpe v. J. & J. H. Peck & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1855

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Buffalo Pipeline Co. v. Bell, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1985
  2. Allen v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  3. State v. DoudnaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1939
  4. Cartledge v. Sinclair Refining CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955
  5. In Re KatcherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

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