Legal Opinion

Shaw v. McCaslin

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 16, 1942No. Civ. 13194PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Bank of Hooversville v. SagersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  2. Crescent Lumber Co. v. LarsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Bushnell v. ElkinsWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
  4. State Savings Bank v. AlbertsonMontana Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Hartke v. AbbottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Lamb Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Lamb Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1956
  3. Bauer v. MonroeMontana Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Brown v. World ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Thode v. McAmisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950

1 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