Legal Opinion

Richardson v. Lamp

California Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1930No. Docket No. L.A. 12072PublishedCited by 18 opinions

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

  1. Lindemann v. CoryellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  2. Wurdeman v. WallerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. FPI Development, Inc. v. NakashimaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  2. Wilson v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Cooper v. CooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. Oakland Medical Building Corp. v. AureguyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Powell v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942

13 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