Legal Opinion

Mundorff v. Ramm

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 16, 1924No. Civ. No. 2671PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants to recover on a promissory note, alleged to have been executed by the defendants in favor of the plaintiff on the first day of September, 1920, for the sum of $25,000, interest payable at the rate of six per cent per annum.

The cause was tried before a jury by whom a verdict was returned in favor of Pearl Ramm, etc., and judgment as to her was entered accordingly. The defendants Knox, Noroian and Hagopian defaulted and judgment on their default was entered against them for the full amount of the note sued on. A motion for a new…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Toby v. Oregon Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Field v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Taylor v. Savings Union Bank & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Estate of JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Bosqui v. Sutro R.R. Co.California Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hellman Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. AldenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Brandes v. Rucker-Fuller Desk Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
  3. California Credit & Collection Corp. v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  4. Evans v. MitchellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Guardianship of GordonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

2 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