Richardson v. Lamp
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.
The six defendants herein were the co'makers of a promissory note, dated January 16, 1924, by the terms of which they promised to pay to plaintiff, six months after date, for value received, the sum of $1500, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum. The note was not paid, and plaintiff brought this action upon a complaint in the usual form. The joint answer of the defendants admitted the execution of the note and its nonpayment, but, by way of special answer and defense, pleaded a contemporaneous oral agreement, the allegations in this regard being, in effect, that at the time…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lindemann v. CoryellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Wurdeman v. WallerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
3Cited by18 opinions
- FPI Development, Inc. v. NakashimaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Wilson v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Cooper v. CooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Oakland Medical Building Corp. v. AureguyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Powell v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.