Legal Opinion
Swartz v. Burr
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 4, 1919No. Civ. No. 2160PublishedCited by 11 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloane, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover three thousand dollars, and cancel a promissory note for two thousand dollars, in pursuance of the terms of an agreement in writing as follows:
“Los Angeles, Cal., Oct. 8th, 1913.
“This agreement entered into this 8th day of October, 1913, ' by and between E. F. Swartz, party of the first part of Fresno, Cal., and E. Burr, party of the second part of Los Angeles, | California. Witnesseth, that in consideration of the first party paying second party the sum of three thousand ($3,000.00), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged and note ) for two…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Blood v. La Serena Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Pauly v. PaulyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Von Schmidt Dredge Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- Bean v. Pioneer Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1885
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wenban Estate, Inc. v. HewlettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
- Judelson v. American Metal Bearing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
- McCormick Saeltzer Co. v. Grizzly Creek Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1925
- Wright v. Iowa Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1937
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.