Legal Opinion
Western National Bank v. Wittman
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 4, 1916No. Civ. No. 1291PublishedCited by 3 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. K. S. Mahon, Judge presiding. The facts' are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
Plaintiff commenced the action by veri-
fied complaint to recover the balance due on a certain promissory note. Judgment went against defendants Geo. W. Witt-man and J. G. Leibold for the sum of $7,076.82, with interest from date of the judgment and costs. Defendant vehicle company, maker of the note, did not answer.
• The appeal is from the judgment and order denying his motion, for a new trial by defendant Wittman alone. .The promissory note in suit reads as follows:
“9000.00. ' San Francisco, Cal., March 30, 1907.
“One day after date, for value received, California Vehicle & Harness Co., a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stroud v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Turner v. MarkhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Daneri v. GazzolaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
3Cited by3 opinions
- E. C. Roper, Inc. v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1934
- Stavnow v. WinfreeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Earl v. Roberts Fuel Oil, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1934