Legal Opinion
Schwerin v. Shostak
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 15, 1963No. Civ. 20042PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This is an appeal by defendant L. K. Shostak from a judgment rendered on a promissory note in favor of plaintiffs Emil and Lotte Schwerin.
The note sued upon was in the face amount of $1,249.90, and the complaint was originally filed in municipal court. Defendant answered and cross-complained for declaratory relief, alleging that the note was executed concurrently with a second note, and that both notes were given without consideration and were intended to be effective only if eosigned by one Stephen J. Reuben. In addition, defendant alleged that if there was any obligation owing…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Roseleaf Corp. v. ChierighinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Wilson v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Sather Banking Co. v. Arthur R. Briggs Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- Savings Bank of San Diego v. Central Market Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- London & San Francisco Bank v. BandmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In Re TorrezUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 1991
- Matthews v. HintonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Beverly Hills National Bank v. GlynnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Beverly Hills National Bank v. GlynnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Comstock v. FiorellaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.