Legal Opinion

Pigott v. Clark

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 28, 1933No. Docket No. 7650PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DESMOND, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff recovered judgment in the sum of $1652.48 which the trial court found to be the balance due on certain promissory notes which had been transferred by one Mitchell to the plaintiff, the judgment also carrying costs.

The defendant appeals, not questioning the correctness of the amount which the court found was unpaid, but contending that no part of it is due or owing, claiming specifically that there'is insufficient evidence to justify the decision, or particularly one of the findings numbered XIII, which is hereinafter set forth.

The defendant, a veterinarian by…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Jackson v. Porter Land and Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1907

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MarhenkeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941
  2. Franck v. J. J. Sugarman-Rudolph Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MarhenkeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API