Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Schumacher
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtCrail, J.
This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment for the amount found due on a promissory note. By the express language on its face, the note was payable “on demand”. At the outset of the transaction between the parties the plaintiff sent the unexecuted note to the defendant for execution accompanied with a letter which read in part: “You will notice that the new note is payable on demand and this is done for the reason that Mr. Moore informed us that payments of $100 per month were going to be made.” In a letter returning the note duly executed the defendant said: “I am herewith enclosing…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Trigg v. ArnottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Herbert's Laurel-Ventura Inc. v. Laurel Ventura Holding Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1943
- Lane-Wells Co. v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Maffett v. EmmonsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1948
- Aero Properties, Inc. v. GottliebCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.