Legal Opinion

Dysert v. Weaver

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 16, 1920No. Civ. No. 3176PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtFinlayson, P. J.

This is an action upon a promissory note executed by defendants. Plaintiffs are the payees named in the note.

[1] Upon the trial, when plaintiffs sought to introduce their evidence, defendants objected upon the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action. It is claimed that there is no sufficient allegation of nonpayment. The complaint alleges that “ninety-one dollars and eighty-seven cents ($91.87), the interest on said promissory note to October 7, 1916, has been paid, and that no other or further sum has been paid thereon.” Appellants contend that the word “thereon” modifies…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Locke v. KlunkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Bank of Shasta v. BoydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Yellow Jacket Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. HolbrookCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Kunza v. GaskellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  2. Van Marel v. WatsonArizona Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Albergo v. GigliottiUtah Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Welther v. Donell (In re Oakmore Ranch Management)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  5. Parkinson v. DiefenderferMontana Supreme Court · 1955

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