Shaw v. McCaslin
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
HANSON, J. pro tem.
This is a suit upon a promissory note in the principal sum of $15,000, with a separate count for money had and received. Respondent, who was the payee of the note, recovered judgment against appellants, its makers, for the sum of $13,500 and attorney fees of $500, less certain amounts which the court found had been paid by appellants to respondent. As the evidence disclosed that plaintiff had advanced to the defendants the sum of $13,500, and the court found that this sum represented the consideration for the note, the trial court concluded the recovery should be limited to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bank of Hooversville v. SagersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Crescent Lumber Co. v. LarsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Bushnell v. ElkinsWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
- State Savings Bank v. AlbertsonMontana Supreme Court · 1909
- Hartke v. AbbottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Lamb Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Lamb Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1956
- Bauer v. MonroeMontana Supreme Court · 1945
- Brown v. World ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Thode v. McAmisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.